Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1395556 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.

Realtime

Deltona, FL

#1139668 May 21, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>
Was going to remind you it was you who brought up the 9/11 report last night.
It was you who made me look it up and made me read it. So it was you who convinced me all you liberals parroting it was all Bush's fault is more propaganda which the report "debunks" .to steal your word.
Perhaps I should thank you. The report proves all of you are wrong.
Yeah right__Hah!

Reality suggests that the huge chip on your shoulder interferes with your vision not mention your comprehension skills.

Keep reading along doll, learn something for a change and perhaps you'll stop posting 911 gibberish.
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1139669 May 21, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Corporal Captain Ghostie it amuses me to no end how under your skin I've gotten. You are a moran!!! [email protected]!!!!!
Allow me to explain dumbazz, it's the one complaining that is the thin skinned one. Maybe if you googled up about fifty pages on thin skinned little men you could enlighten your miserable azz.
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1139670 May 21, 2014
Red Lobster wrote:
Waxturds,, here, there and everywhere!
The same as splattered sh1t. That be Waxturd.
Rock Lobster

New Hyde Park, NY

#1139671 May 21, 2014
Red Lobster wrote:
<quoted text> "Mr liar"... "whiney azzed LIAR" ... Did you say, "Mr. liar" and "whiney azzed LIAR"?... LOL ... Barack Hussein Obama: "Lie of the Year" ... and Gay Ghost: "Bumpass Liar of the Year".
Waxturds, here, there and everywhere!!!

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#1139673 May 21, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
First your buddy claimed Obama raised taxes on the middle class.
I said that he actually cut taxes on the middle class.
And you can charging in with this trillion dollar number.
First of all, the stimulus bill cost was like 900 billion. 38% dealt with tax breaks or 342 billion dollars.
This compares with Bushes 2.8 trillion dollar tax cut - unfunded tilted towards the wealthy.
Flack: Borrowing 2.8 trillion favoring the wealthy OK. Obama's 342 billion favoring working Americans is "OMG OMG OMG".
From Forbes
President Bush and his Congressional Republican majorities at the time cut taxes for everyone in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Indeed, they cut more for lower and middle income taxpayers than they did for “the rich,” as Obama calls the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small businesses. The top tax rate was cut by only 13%, while the lowest rate was cut by one-third, 33%.

According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.

The Bush tax cuts also included a doubling of the child tax credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. Because of that, and the 33% cut in the bottom tax rate, nearly 8 million more people dropped off the federal income tax rolls entirely, paying zero federal income taxes. Indeed, under the Bush tax cuts, the bottom 40% of all income earners not only paid no federal income taxes, as a group on net. By 2009, they were being paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of all federal income taxes.

These Bush tax cuts did not explode the deficit, as Obama and his echo chamber have alleged. By 2007, the deficit was down to $160 billion, less than 15% of Obama’s deficits today. Total federal revenues soared from $793.7 billion in 2003, when the last of the Bush tax cuts were enacted, to $1.16 trillion in 2007, a 47% increase. Capital gains revenues had doubled by 2005, despite the 25% capital gains rate cut adopted in 2003. Federal revenues rose to 18.5% of GDP by 2007, above the long term, postwar, historical average over the prior 60 years. CBO was projecting surpluses to return indefinitely in 2012 through the end of its projection period in 2018.

Bush did increase federal spending as a percent of GDP by one-seventh, erasing the federal spending cuts enacted by the Republican Congressional majorities in the 1990s. But even with that, deficits during the Bush years averaged just 2% of GDP, one-third less than the average over the prior 50 years. President Obama’s deficits have averaged 5 times as much, at 9.1% of GDP.

The proof is in the pudding over the Bush tax cuts. They were followed by a record 52 straight months of job creation, producing 8 million new jobs, with the unemployment rate falling to 4.4%. Business investment spending, which had declined for 9 straight quarters, reversed and increased 6.7% per quarter, producing all those new jobs.

You libtards are morans.
Rock Lobster

New Hyde Park, NY

#1139674 May 21, 2014
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
The same as splattered sh1t. That be Waxturd.
Yes, he could be described as being very similar to a bad case of diarrhea!

Since: May 11

Carlisle, PA

#1139675 May 21, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Why do I try. The government of those countries, at that time, were not supporting the terrorists. Why don't you do us all a favor and get you somebody to teach you how to understand what you read.
I read just fine. Yemen, Libya,Sudan etc knew they had Al Qaeda in their countries & did not throw them out.

So why didn't Bush invade those countries.

If you are going to use the "supporting & harboring terrorists" as an excuse for invading Iraq, then these other countries would have been better targets since they actually had Al Qaeda in their countries. You know the group that attacked us.

Instead you said Bush went after Sadam because he supported Palestinian terrorists who did not attack us on 9-11.

Mineola Moron

Palm Coast, FL

#1139676 May 21, 2014
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
The same as splattered sh1t. That be Waxturd.
Your requested entrée is being served now in the parking lot in your '47 jalopy with the "Re-Elect Obamaliar" sticker on the rusted bumper.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1139677 May 21, 2014
Obama:'I Will Not Stand For' Misconduct At Veterans Affairs Hospitals

President Barack Obama vented his anger Wednesday over allegations of misconduct at Veterans Affairs hospitals and vowed to root out anyone responsible, though he stopped short of announcing VA Secretary Eric Shinseki's resignation over the ordeal.

"If these allegations prove to be true, it is dishonorable, it is a disgrace and I will not tolerate it. Period," Obama said during a hastily called press conference at the White House.

"I will not stand for it. Not as commander-in-chief, but also not as an American," he added. "None of us should."

The president's remarks come a day after the VA inspector general indicated his office is investigating possible misconduct at 26 VA facilities around the country, including a Phoenix hospital where 40 veterans allegedly died while waiting for care and staff rigged record-keeping to cover up long wait times.

Obama insisted that anyone found to have manipulated or falsified records at a VA facility "will be punished," but he urged patience as the administration carries out its probe.

"I know people are angry and want swift action. I sympathize with that," he said, noting that some VA facility staff have already been put on administrative leave. "But we have to let investigators do their job. The families deserve to know the facts."

Obama met with Shinseki earlier Wednesday morning and ordered him to launch a full-scale investigation of conditions at VA facilities nationwide, with a deadline of next week for preliminary results. He also ordered White House deputy chief of staff Rob Nabors to conduct a broader view of the VA system, with a full report due next month. Nabors is heading to Phoenix later Wednesday to meet with VA officials there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/21/obam...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1139679 May 21, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> From Forbes
President Bush and his Congressional Republican majorities at the time cut taxes for everyone in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Indeed, they cut more for lower and middle income taxpayers than they did for “the rich,” as Obama calls the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small businesses. The top tax rate was cut by only 13%, while the lowest rate was cut by one-third, 33%.
According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.
In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.
The Bush tax cuts also included a doubling of the child tax credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. Because of that, and the 33% cut in the bottom tax rate, nearly 8 million more people dropped off the federal income tax rolls entirely, paying zero federal income taxes. Indeed, under the Bush tax cuts, the bottom 40% of all income earners not only paid no federal income taxes, as a group on net. By 2009, they were being paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of all federal income taxes.
These Bush tax cuts did not explode the deficit, as Obama and his echo chamber have alleged. By 2007, the deficit was down to $160 billion, less than 15% of Obama’s deficits today. Total federal revenues soared from $793.7 billion in 2003, when the last of the Bush tax cuts were enacted, to $1.16 trillion in 2007, a 47% increase. Capital gains revenues had doubled by 2005, despite the 25% capital gains rate cut adopted in 2003. Federal revenues rose to 18.5% of GDP by 2007, above the long term, postwar, historical average over the prior 60 years. CBO was projecting surpluses to return indefinitely in 2012 through the end of its projection period in 2018.
Bush did increase federal spending as a percent of GDP by one-seventh, erasing the federal spending cuts enacted by the Republican Congressional majorities in the 1990s. But even with that, deficits during the Bush years averaged just 2% of GDP, one-third less than the average over the prior 50 years. President Obama’s deficits have averaged 5 times as much, at 9.1% of GDP.
The proof is in the pudding over the Bush tax cuts. They were followed by a record 52 straight months of job creation, producing 8 million new jobs, with the unemployment rate falling to 4.4%. Business investment spending, which had declined for 9 straight quarters, reversed and increased 6.7% per quarter, producing all those new jobs.
You libtards are morans.
8 million new jobs?

more like 1.1 million. Obama has created more than that. by a mile.
forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1139680 May 21, 2014
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
Not very convincing, look how many of you fanatics on the right that would be happy if Obama was kicked out of office. I'll bet you that the vast number of Iraqis will say that they were better off under Saddam than they are now... Not counting the couple hundred thousands that lost their lives for Bush's lies.
doood....
I worked at BIAP...(Baghdad Intl Airport) rebuilding the comm's and navigational systems that were destroyed as our Combat forces came in. I personally met many, many people who had worked at the Airport, under Saddam's 'leadership' who had a family member or two go 'missing'.....
Rock Lobster

New Hyde Park, NY

#1139681 May 21, 2014
Mineola Moron wrote:
<quoted text> Your requested entrée is being served now in the parking lot in your '47 jalopy with the "Re-Elect Obamaliar" sticker on the rusted bumper.
Waxturds!! SPLAT!
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#1139682 May 21, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> From Forbes
President Bush and his Congressional Republican majorities at the time cut taxes for everyone in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Indeed, they cut more for lower and middle income taxpayers than they did for “the rich,” as Obama calls the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small businesses. The top tax rate was cut by only 13%, while the lowest rate was cut by one-third, 33%.
According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.
In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.
The Bush tax cuts also included a doubling of the child tax credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. Because of that, and the 33% cut in the bottom tax rate, nearly 8 million more people dropped off the federal income tax rolls entirely, paying zero federal income taxes. Indeed, under the Bush tax cuts, the bottom 40% of all income earners not only paid no federal income taxes, as a group on net. By 2009, they were being paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of all federal income taxes.
These Bush tax cuts did not explode the deficit, as Obama and his echo chamber have alleged. By 2007, the deficit was down to $160 billion, less than 15% of Obama’s deficits today. Total federal revenues soared from $793.7 billion in 2003, when the last of the Bush tax cuts were enacted, to $1.16 trillion in 2007, a 47% increase. Capital gains revenues had doubled by 2005, despite the 25% capital gains rate cut adopted in 2003. Federal revenues rose to 18.5% of GDP by 2007, above the long term, postwar, historical average over the prior 60 years. CBO was projecting surpluses to return indefinitely in 2012 through the end of its projection period in 2018.
Bush did increase federal spending as a percent of GDP by one-seventh, erasing the federal spending cuts enacted by the Republican Congressional majorities in the 1990s. But even with that, deficits during the Bush years averaged just 2% of GDP, one-third less than the average over the prior 50 years. President Obama’s deficits have averaged 5 times as much, at 9.1% of GDP.
The proof is in the pudding over the Bush tax cuts. They were followed by a record 52 straight months of job creation, producing 8 million new jobs, with the unemployment rate falling to 4.4%. Business investment spending, which had declined for 9 straight quarters, reversed and increased 6.7% per quarter, producing all those new jobs.
You libtards are morans.
Who was the author of that c&p Birther Flack?

From Forbes means less than dk.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#1139684 May 21, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
I read just fine. Yemen, Libya,Sudan etc knew they had Al Qaeda in their countries & did not throw them out.
So why didn't Bush invade those countries.
If you are going to use the "supporting & harboring terrorists" as an excuse for invading Iraq, then these other countries would have been better targets since they actually had Al Qaeda in their countries. You know the group that attacked us.
Instead you said Bush went after Sadam because he supported Palestinian terrorists who did not attack us on 9-11.
One last time idiot!!! The countries you mention were battling the terrorists in their countries. Not harboring, not supporting them. Just like the IRA in Great Briton. We didn't attack England either did we nitwit? In Afghanistan and Iraq the governments in power were either harboring, funding, or supporting the terrorists. Please tell me you are not so stupid that you can't see the difference?
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1139686 May 21, 2014
forks_make_us_fat wrote:
<quoted text>
doood....
I worked at BIAP...(Baghdad Intl Airport) rebuilding the comm's and navigational systems that were destroyed as our Combat forces came in. I personally met many, many people who had worked at the Airport, under Saddam's 'leadership' who had a family member or two go 'missing'.....
regardless what you say or saw, Iraq was better off under Saddam than now..You did not have the secular violence or AlQaeda, Iran has been embolden, nothing good has come of it, But thousands are dead needlessly. And trillions wasted. Plain and simple4.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#1139687 May 21, 2014
forks_make_us_fat wrote:
<quoted text>
doood....
I worked at BIAP...(Baghdad Intl Airport) rebuilding the comm's and navigational systems that were destroyed as our Combat forces came in. I personally met many, many people who had worked at the Airport, under Saddam's 'leadership' who had a family member or two go 'missing'.....
These libtard morans don't believe anything unless it comes from the libtard talking points media. You can show them facts all day and they will shut their eyes and plug their ears and go 'lalalala' till you stop. Either that or they won't refute the facts just smear whoeverwrote the piece. Libtards are brain dead morans!!!!!!

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#1139688 May 21, 2014
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
8 million new jobs?
more like 1.1 million. Obama has created more than that. by a mile.
The job growth under Obama has barely keep up with population growth. Last I looked 4.4% unemployment is better then 6.3% unemployment.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#1139689 May 21, 2014
kept
TPRTY

United States

#1139690 May 21, 2014
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
Allow me to explain dumbazz, it's the one complaining that is the thin skinned one.
Right, just like your president who does nothing but bitch and moan about how bad everything is, how he didn't know anything about it for 6 years (he found out watching the news) and how he's real mad.

But hey, at least he cares...

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#1139692 May 21, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
I read just fine. Yemen, Libya,Sudan etc knew they had Al Qaeda in their countries & did not throw them out.
So why didn't Bush invade those countries.
If you are going to use the "supporting & harboring terrorists" as an excuse for invading Iraq, then these other countries would have been better targets since they actually had Al Qaeda in their countries. You know the group that attacked us.
Instead you said Bush went after Sadam because he supported Palestinian terrorists who did not attack us on 9-11.
An example moran!!!

Al Qaeda battle in Yemen - sources

December 19, 2001 Posted: 5:26 AM EST (1026 GMT)

SANA'A, Yemen (CNN)-- Yemeni security forces are fighting their way into suspected al Qaeda hideouts, diplomatic sources told CNN.

The sources in Yemen said the fighting was "very significant" in light of fears that Yemen may become the next target if the U.S. widens its war on terrorism.

Earlier this year, a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official in the Middle East described Yemen as having "the second largest al Qaeda network outside of Afghanistan."

The suspects now being hunted, said diplomatic sources, had probably been in Yemen for some time.

The sources said the suspects were more likely to be wanted by the United States in connection with the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole when it docked in Yemen than to be anyone who had recently fled from Afghanistan.

The numbers of al Qaeda suspects now involved in fighting were probably "very small," but where they have the protection of tribal militias, the Yemeni authorities might have a "major battle on their hands," said sources.

"The government of Yemen seems to want to demonstrate it can do this kind of thing for themselves," said one diplomat.

Wednesday was the second day of fighting, diplomatic sources said. Yemeni authorities on Tuesday admitted a dozen people had been killed in skirmishes and about 20 more injured.

The fighting was taking place in two areas: Marib, east of the capital of San'a, and Shabwa, a province north of Marib, stretching towards the border with Saudi Arabia, diplomats said.

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) 4 min SweLL GirL 8,894
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 min Woj 216,806
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 11 min Patriot AKA Bozo 60,099
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 42 min Go Blue Forever 102,488
Who's this Fauxcahontas? 1 hr ReadAllAbout IT 25
Guess I'm voting for the businessman. 1 hr HRC is a douche-bag 18
Paul Weston from 12Tribe Films. 1 hr NO UNvetted Illegals 4
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages