Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1656287 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.

Nostrilis Waxman

Windsor, CT

#1071174 Jan 29, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
There was a time they were needed.
Not now.
But let it up to a right whiner to want to hand money to companies making billions in profits and have a tizzy fit about a hungary kid benefitting from food stamps.
Liberal Sock, right on Cue!

Hey Dummy! What did Ted Cruz filibuster, dumber than sh*t person.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Level 1

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#1071175 Jan 29, 2014
GOP R Idiots wrote:
<quoted text>
All hail Orly Taitz, the queen and leader of the birther movement.
She's also a certified nutjob....but so are most tea turd types that believe this President is not
legitimate.
Keep it up! Watch 2016 go down the drain for you, once again!!!
“Barack Obama has gone from blaming George W. Bush to plagiarizing George W. Bush.” OMG your President can't even get his own speech. This is delicious, dumbo O'bama.
There were lines like,“Our job is to help Americans build a future of hope and opportunity. A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy. A future of hope and opportunity requires that all our citizens have affordable and available healthcare. Extending opportunity and hope depends on a stable supply of energy.” All of that came from the 2007 State of the Union Address by George W. Bush. So, Barack Obama has gone from blaming George W. Bush to plagiarizing George W. Bush.

OMG-O'bama really thinks he is a President--who would have thunk?
Nostrilis Waxman

Windsor, CT

#1071176 Jan 29, 2014
Democrats before Iraq War started....

GOPidiots

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#1071178 Jan 29, 2014
Liberals R Defective wrote:
<quoted text>If you're thinking that running a 70 year old lesbian with a chequered past and blood on her bony wrinkled hands is going to win you Marxist types the White House, I've got some swamp land you might be interested in. Cheers!
She has you rightwhiners in a tizzy. You know there's no onevriding in the GOP clown car that can defeat her.
Face it, the GOP is screwed.
But then, you all were convinced Mittens could actually win.
Nostrilis Waxman

Windsor, CT

#1071179 Jan 29, 2014
Obama was using the gender card last night?

Glad I didn't watch.

SOS.

Obama the divider.
ptbw forever

Georgetown, IN

#1071180 Jan 29, 2014
Nuculur option wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't even reset a password, moron.
Much less debunk anything, you old fraud.
Tell us about all white diversity again!!
HAHAHAHAHAHA
You like getting kicked to the curb, don't you?? Satisfies your masochistic needs.
You can't reset a password without an email address, dipshit.

My email address was my college email address that no longer exists.

You know that it is actually you who is getting messed up on here when you resort to trying and failing to attack my ability to change passwords on topix, and then resorting to adding a strawman to somehow cushion your pathetic posts.

I know plenty of country bumpkins that can run circles around the supposed intelligence that you pride yourself on.
Nostrilis Waxman

Windsor, CT

#1071181 Jan 29, 2014
Obama lied about women's pay last night.

I bet there were about 13 lies from this moron last night.

I didn't waste my time watching the Jive-Ass Punk Obama.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Level 1

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#1071182 Jan 29, 2014
USAsince1680 wrote:
<quoted text>
Same thing can be said about Tea Party darling, Rep. Trey Radel's empty seat now that he has been forced to resign. He may be replaced by a Republican in that district but it won't be a Teatard. People have had enough of their insanity.
What difference at this point does it make?
Signed the Doormat aka Hillary Rodman Clinton
Nostrilis Waxman

Windsor, CT

#1071184 Jan 29, 2014
Liberals R Defective wrote:
<quoted text>If you're thinking that running a 70 year old lesbian with a chequered past and blood on her bony wrinkled hands is going to win you Marxist types the White House, I've got some swamp land you might be interested in. Cheers!
Hillary will be running at a very close age to what Regan was when the Commie/Demo-Kraut said he was too old.

That stump legged ugly old hag b*tch does not care about people, just her ego.

"What difference does it make" if she failed and people died?

If America votes for that old witch, they deserve her.

Obama was one big ass mistake.

I suspect Americans will want Hope & Change, reject Demo-Krauts.

“Peace on Earth”

Level 4

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#1071185 Jan 29, 2014
ptbw forever wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know that is backwards, and how do you know how far in the past I want to go?
"“It’s 2014, You’re on the Wrong Side of History”
It’s 2014, so you shouldn’t think like this, you’re old-fashioned, out-dated, etc. This argument seems to be based on a combination of two logical fallacies, Appeal to Novelty (newer = better) and Appeal to Popularity (popular = better). Liberals think they’re on the “right” side of history, and we’re on the “wrong” side of history. Because they view history as being a linear progression from conservativism/nationalism to liberalism/globalism, and that everyone should bend in the wind of what’s popular and not stand in the way of “progress” as they define it. I don’t really know how to argue against this, because it’s not even an argument, they’re just telling you what year it is. Sometimes I reply “It’s April, what opinions should I have in April? Have you got the time as well?”. Or I just quote Chesterton:
We often read nowadays of the valor or audacity with which some rebel attacks a hoary tyranny or an antiquated superstition. There is not really any courage at all in attacking hoary or antiquated things, any more than in offering to fight one’s grandmother. The really courageous man is he who defies tyrannies young as the morning and superstitions fresh as the first flowers. The only true free-thinker is he whose intellect is as much free from the future as from the past. He cares as little for what will be as for what has been; he cares only for what ought to be.
- G.K. Chesterton
When you’re debating Liberals, you need to understand that this is actually how they understand things. I’m not even joking. They actually believe that there is a relationship between goodness and time. Ever been told “your opinions are old-fashioned”? Ever been told “your opinions are dying out”? Ever been told you’re “standing the way of Progress™”? Or my personal favourite: Ever been told “you’re on the wrong side of history”?
To help you get on the right side of history, I have made this chart showing how things just keep getting better and better. You can tell how bad an opinion is by how old it is. The older an opinion, the worse it is. So please get on the right side of history and support any new fad that Liberals come up with. Because according to them, newer = better.
Plus, are we really on the wrong side of history anyway? Nationalism is skyrocketing all across Europe."
http://someofmybestfriendsarewhite.tumblr.com...
Don't look at me, you're the idiots who decided to call yourselves "progressives.
White Nationalism is for losers which is the exact reason most of your followers are residing in prisons. IMO, far-right extremist like yourself are a menace to the United States of America.
Nostrilis Waxman

Windsor, CT

#1071186 Jan 29, 2014
GOPidiots wrote:
<quoted text>
She has you rightwhiners in a tizzy. You know there's no onevriding in the GOP clown car that can defeat her.
Face it, the GOP is screwed.
But then, you all were convinced Mittens could actually win.
Aren't you one of the idiots that said Regain couldn't win when Carter lost 44 states to Reagan?
ptbw forever

Georgetown, IN

#1071187 Jan 29, 2014
Nuculur option wrote:
<quoted text>
the Supreme Court has ruled that outlawing same sex marriage is UnConstitutional.
Why do you hate the US Constitution??
What sort of traitor are you, old man??
But I'm tired of dealing with an idiot of your caliber.
"Same-sex relationships should not be encouraged because they don’t produce children. It’s not that complicated. Opposite-sex relationships are worth something to the community and same-sex relationships are only worth something to the two individuals. Because of that, the community should encourage and subsidise and incentivise opposite-sex relationships and not same-sex relationships.

It’s not just about economics. It’s not just about whether we can “afford” same-sex marriage in an economic sense. It’s about the fact that we give a set of benefits to opposite-sex sexual relationships between unrelated adults, and the reason we do that is because that’s the sort of relationship that will probably produce healthy children, whereas other relationships, for example with children, same-sex, or family members, or staying single, probably won’t."

"The danger same-sex marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its potential for procreation, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must endorse and grant legal and economic privileges to a sexual relationship between two men simply because they claim to love each other, upon what basis can it deny the same to a group of five men who claim to love each other, or a brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists claim that they only want all couples treated equally. But why should all couples be granted equal state privileges, when not all couples offer equal potential to benefit the state? Why is sexual love between couples more worthy of state sanction than sexual love between groups? Why is sexual love worthy of state sanction at all? When we factor in procreation, the answer is obvious. If self-reported emotions become the only criteria, the restriction of marriage to unrelated couples loses its logical basis, entirely undermining the function of the institution."

http://someofmybestfriendsarewhite.tumblr.com...

They even destroy pro-same sex marriage arguments...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1071188 Jan 29, 2014
The GOP’s Dead-End Executive Order Freakout

Republicans have tried to whip up a frenzy about Obama’s threat to use executive orders. But he’s used lots fewer than most presidents, and the public wants a president who takes action.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01...
If you’re inclined, at all, to take Republicans at their word on this, then it’s easy to think that President Obama has used more than his share of executive orders. Indeed, given the widely publicized moves of 2012 and 2013—including an order to move deportation efforts away from undocumented children—and the human bias towards big events (we tend to remember them), it’s possible that the GOP is right.

But it isn’t.

The American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara keeps a tally of every executive order from every president. And where does Obama rank compared to other post-World War II presidents?

Second from the bottom. At 168 executive orders in five years, he has two more than George H.W. Bush. Above him, with 169, is Gerald Ford. Then, the numbers take a leap. JFK had 214 executive orders; George W. Bush had 291; Jimmy Carter had 320, and Lyndon Johnson had 325. Bill Clinton signed off on 364 during his eight years, and Ronald Reagan came in with 381. The winners in this game are are Dwight Eisenhower with 484, Harry S. Truman with 907, and the awful tyrant Franklin Roosevelt with a whopping 3,522.

In other words, Republicans can say what they will about the president, but it’s ridiculous to denounce Obama for the use of executive orders if you’re comparing him to other presidents.

Which is to say that this is less about his actions, and more about how they stand as a rebuke to the last three years of GOP behavior. Since taking control of the House in 2011, Republicans have committed themselves to blockading as much of the administration as possible. They’ve filibustered nominees, blocked appointments, and killed legislation, regardless of whether they stood with on the merits. Their only concern—their only goal—was to damage Obama’s credibility and keep the White House from scoring any points.

They weren’t unsuccessful—Obama’s approval rating is at a relative low for his term—but they didn’t win either (he’s still president). And while they benefitted from several administration missteps, including the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act, it’s also true that, overall, their party is underwater with a public that craves action.

Obama’s executive actions are a response to public concern, and one that Republicans can’t match, on account of their paltry agenda. Instead, the plan is to snipe at the president’s proposal—to paint it as unconstitutional—in hopes that they can tarnish the attempt and keep Obama from salvaging his job approval.

I’m sure it will energize Republican partisans. As for the large majority of Americans who liked what they heard from the State of the Union? That’s a different question.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1071189 Jan 29, 2014
CNN's instant polling among Americans who watched Tuesday's State of the Union found an overwhelming majority reacting positively to President Barack Obama's address, as it has four times previously during his presidency.

The network's poll found that 76 percent of Americans who watched the speech viewed it somewhat or very positively, in line with reactions to his previous speeches, although the percentage with "very positive" views declined. Last year, 77 percent of watchers reported a positive view of the speech to CNN, and slightly higher numbers approved of Obama's speeches in three previous years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/29/stat...
Nostrils Waxman

Windsor, CT

#1071190 Jan 29, 2014
Ray Nagin rose to American political fame in swift, albeit uncensored, fashion -- as the New Orleans mayor who publicly trashed and pleaded with President George W. Bush to save his city in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

"Flying over in Air Force One doesn’t do it justice,” Nagin said during a radio interview a few days after the storm hit on Aug. 29, 2005.

Today, more than three years out of office, Nagin returns to New Orleans, only this time to face federal corruption charges related to the aftermath of the deadly and destructive storm that put him in the spotlight.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Level 1

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#1071191 Jan 29, 2014
Nostrilis Waxman wrote:
Obama lied about women's pay last night.
I bet there were about 13 lies from this moron last night.
I didn't waste my time watching the Jive-Ass Punk Obama.
Except in his own administration-he doesn't pay women as much as men--he is a pig too.
ptbw forever

Georgetown, IN

#1071192 Jan 29, 2014
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
well hey, go back over to that white supremacy site and plagiarize some more BS about how white people are being treated so bad so we can all realize just how serious a person you really are.
you do realize that i'm getting a big chuckle about some white dood who's on the internet acting like a bad ass, don't you? far as i know you're a 13 year old who's daddy is the local Klan leader and you're just trying to get that set to grow a little faster so you can go to the next protest on the local courthouse lawn without being scared of all the sane folks who are going to show up and shout you down.
so yeah, i can see why you're angry.
Dude, I am 6 foot 4 and over 220 pounds of muscle, I am a badass.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#1071193 Jan 29, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>in fact, they get better care for less money, as i clearly pointed out...
show me one study that americans are healthier than people in developed nations with universal care and that we pay less for that.
facts are fun!!!!!
all statistics (education, crime, health, etc) for "Americans" compare unfavorably with many developed countries with homogenous populations because America is burdened with a significant minority underclass....

try comparing statistics for white, non-Hispanic Americans with those countries and the results will be different.....

and if you think that is racist, perhaps the truth is racist...but nothing will ever change without facing the truth....
dem

Chicago, IL

#1071194 Jan 29, 2014
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>Except in his own administration-he doesn't pay women as much as men--he is a pig too.
Fk you racist beitch

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Level 1

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#1071195 Jan 29, 2014
OH crap. O'bama will be coming to Wisconsin right by where I live--and we will be there to protest him--this ought to be fun. LOL--why would he come to one of the Red counties in the state--what a jack ass. But it will be 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.

Orlando Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr Dudley 64,301
Who is better? Orlando Health or Florida Hospi... 8 hr Private Citizen 3
Inspiration Lane - Don't Quit (May '09) 13 hr Mary NY 73,877
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) Sun fortmyersf 514,722
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... (May '17) Dec 8 Frindly 1,190
News Sex offenders, predators find room at Friendly ... (Nov '08) Dec 8 Cherry 64
News Residents learn how to deal, get rid of iguanas (May '09) Dec 6 jstrong2024 37

Orlando Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Orlando Mortgages