Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1275000 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.

sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#872410 Mar 12, 2013
House conservatives: GOP leadership killed measure to defund Obamacare
http://washingtonexaminer.com/house-conservat...

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Ryan said his plan assumes that the far-reaching reforms known as Obamacare will be repealed. Host Chris Wallace reacted with open disbelief:“That’s not going to happen.”

Indeed, to take Ryan seriously is to believe that legislation repealing the landmark Affordable Care Act would be approved by the Senate, with its Democratic majority, and signed by Obama. What are the odds? That’s a clown question, bro.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene...
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#872411 Mar 12, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
your point eludes me.
just like it did for 69,498,516 of us.
Damn, you have that many personas? Try a good psychiatrist!
Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#872412 Mar 12, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
Paul Ryan’s make-believe budget
If Rep. Paul Ryan wants people to take his budget manifestos seriously, he should be honest about his ambition: not so much to make the federal government fiscally sustainable as to make it smaller.
You will recall that the Ryan Budget was a big Republican selling point in last year’s election. Most famously, Ryan proposed turning Medicare into a voucher program. He offered the usual GOP recipe of tax cuts — to be offset by closing certain loopholes, which he would not specify — along with drastic reductions in non-defense “discretionary” spending.
If the plan Ryan offered had been enacted, the federal budget would not come into balance until 2040. For some reason, Republicans forgot to mention this detail in their stump speeches and campaign ads.
Voters were supposed to believe that Ryan was an apostle of fiscal rectitude. But his real aim wasn’t to balance the budget. It was to starve the federal government of revenue. Big government, in his worldview, is inherently bad — never mind that we live in an awfully big country.
Ryan and Mitt Romney offered their vision, President Obama offered his, and Americans made their choice. Rather emphatically.
Now Ryan, as chairman of the House Budget Committee, is coming back with an ostensibly new and improved version of the framework that voters rejected in November. Judging by the preview he offered Sunday, the new plan is even less grounded in reality than was the old one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene...
More chatter from the losers on the left with their hands out for money earned by others.

Are any of you losers able to stand on your own two feet without the government their to prop you worthless A$$ up. All hail the 47%
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#872413 Mar 12, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
Rand Paul, the junior senator from Kentucky, is drawing attention as a potential Republican candidate for president come 2016, part of a new generation of GOP leadership.
But ladies and gentlemen, Rand Paul is also a bit of a nut. The deep streak of paranoia that he displayed for almost 13 hours on the Senate floor last week would, in ordinary times, disqualify him as a party leader, let alone a potential president. But sadly, these are not ordinary times.
Let’s start by admitting that the stunt itself was a nice piece of political stagecraft. The one-man, TV-friendly filibuster gave Paul the opportunity to play Jimmy Stewart, a lone hero standing up in defense of the Constitution. It’s the type of role that Paul covets.
However, if you’re going to grandstand on the national stage like that, shouldn’t you have something sane to say?
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2013/03...
That guy from Genoa might make a good Pope too!(see the couple in there with bioethics backgrounds, one with metaphysics too!)

Waiting fer the white smoke-I prefers it, less unatural contaminents!
No Surprize

Seminole, FL

#872414 Mar 12, 2013
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text>You've been seeing unlicensed ones, apparently. Does your wife know?
Massages fade, shovelhead dumb and stupid is forever..
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#872415 Mar 12, 2013
Picks head up off of desk and sighs.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#872416 Mar 12, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
More chatter from the losers on the left with their hands out for money earned by others.
Are any of you losers able to stand on your own two feet without the government their to prop you worthless A$$ up. All hail the 47%
another Reagan hater.
The Slayer

Findlay, OH

#872417 Mar 12, 2013
Cway wrote:
<quoted text>
Put federal marshalls on flights. Tenet's August 6, 2001 PDB mentioned FBI sources which described preparations for hijackings. The source was likely the agents who were tipped off about the Arab students learning to fly, but not land.
<quoted text>
Libby did no jail time and Bush immediately commuted the criminal part of his sentence. Some reporter did a short stint. I think that's about it. Please don't tell me this was adequate punishment.
<quoted text>
Bush inherited a healthy budget and not only wrecked it, but the economy as well. No, Obama didn't borrow any plays out your playbook. He has had to react to a bad situation.
<quoted text>
Bush and Cheney pushed those accusations to the hilt, but no such violations were revealed once Iraq was occupied.
<quoted text>
Oh, come on. Republicans became big spenders starting with Reagan.
<quoted text>
The crash was brought about by a real estate bubble and credit default swaps. The real estate bubbble was fueled by bad lending policies of the banks, which were voluntary, not forced.
The Republican Party controlled Congress and the White House during this period and did nothing to address these issues.
<quoted text>
History suggests otherwise. FDR took us out of the Great Depression. There was a second dip in unemployment from 1938 to 1941 caused by a cutback in government spending. But this eased by late 1941 and unemployment dropped down to 10%. WW II took care of the rest.
The administration of John Kennedy saw prosperous times.
Contrary to GOP beliefs, it was Paul Volcker who created the recession during the second half of Carter's tenure. In an effort to knock down inflation, Volcker raised the prime rate to something around 20%. It eventually reduced inflation, but its immediate impact was that corporations decided not to borrow and cut back their work forces. You know the rest.
There was an economic boom during the Clinton years, although he did leave office with a moderate recession.
As far as Reagan goes, much of the boom he achieved came from military spending and large annual deficits. It was not sustainable.
Some I would agree with you on and some I would not agree with you.
But I like the fact you made your case....instead of the silly
everything was all Bush's fault.
Its has been more then four years now...and its a old tune.
Besides....you libs don't seem to understand that few conservatives
defend Bush.
Bush did leave office with something like a 35% approval rating.
Kinda tells us that Conservatives were not to happy with Bush
just like most other Americans.
Keep in mind that Bush was pretty just as much as a motivating
factor for the Tea Party as Obama was.

“We doing better...”

Since: Jul 08

we've got to do more

#872418 Mar 12, 2013
new yawk wrote:
I noticed right after the election, the liberals became rabid reptiles. Working off of their Reptilian Brains while the higher Brain Functions and Processes have been suppressed.
I don't know where ***she comes up with this crazy stuff, LIES.
And for what purpose. I believe there really is something ***Mentally Disordered in leo's brain.
I'm not being facetious.
Like you ( have ), I've also observed it.
***Applicable to The Others as well.
<quoted text>
Oh, you "two"! <rolls eyes, shakes head> This is where I got it. http://www.topix.com/forum/city/fort-lauderda...

You can read (perhaps an unwarranted assumption on my part) through and find Methmouth Majority posting most of Saturday with a New York ip...kinda' thought s/he was crazy Jane, but the "tribe" has a thousand clowns, so what-ev...
No Surprize

Seminole, FL

#872419 Mar 12, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
More chatter from the losers on the left with their hands out for money earned by others.
Are any of you losers able to stand on your own two feet without the government their to prop you worthless A$$ up. All hail the 47%
The further the "culture of violence" drifts from the truth, the more sonicfiller will hate those that speak it.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#872420 Mar 12, 2013
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn, you have that many personas? Try a good psychiatrist!
Mr. change-it is projecting.

doesn't that ever get old?
No Surprize

Seminole, FL

#872421 Mar 12, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
Fight Club vs. the Weenie Brigade
I can only guess that all those Republicans in the House doing P90X have been dabbling in supplements that have shrunk their testicular fortitude to fight.
We need more members of the conservative fight club in congress and less in the weenie brigade.
http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/12/fight-club...
Spammer: The act of sonicfiller obnoxiously doing repeated cut-n-paste for attention or in order to disturb others, a deranged dumbass on a forum, running on empty, a moron posting inane crap or delusional spam of no relevance for only their deranged amusement. Definitely liberal.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#872422 Mar 12, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
More chatter from the losers on the left with their hands out for money earned by others.
Are any of you losers able to stand on your own two feet without the government their to prop you worthless A$$ up. All hail the 47%
22% of that 47% with their hands out are 65 and older living on Social Security. Thank you once again for reminding American voters of Repub hate of the elderly.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#872423 Mar 12, 2013
The GOP’s Bush Baggage

If Republicans don’t think that their opponents will keep using George W. Bush as a club with which they bludgeon the party in the next few elections, they forget how much they have relied on trying to paint every Democratic nominee as the next Carter. Bush is their Carter, and the longer it takes them to break with what Bush represented the longer their political woes will last.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/lariso...
Stoneman

Boise, ID

#872424 Mar 12, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are arguing for Obamacare. Moving towards everyone having insurance would make everyone payers into the health system.
Not having insurance & relying on Health Savings Accounts will only work for the small stuff. My fried had a heart attack at 42. Her emergency room & ICU bill was $89,000. Without any doctor bills yet.
As soon as she has enough strength its triple bypasss time.
We could have meaningful tort reform ass soon as Republicans quit insisting on caps.
No, Obamacare doesn't make everybody pay for health care. Liberal parasites with low incomes STILL won't pay for health care, that's why you lefties like it.

Doctors have to pay over $100,000/year in malpractice insurance. Ask one next time you go in. Who pays for that? The people that see him for health care.

Recently Merck Pharm was sued because a few fat middle-aged smokers had heart attacks after taking Vioxx. They got a couple billion in a class action-- who pays? The people that buy drugs from Merck.

I put $700/month into a health savings account, about the same as I would pay in health insurance. In a year, I have over $8K. In ten years, that's almost $100K with modest investment growth. Since I've been doing it for 30 years, I can afford just about any procedure I need. And any money I don't use is passed down to my children. Try to do that with an insurance policy.

See, there are many solutions to problems if you take responsibility for yourself. But that's not the Liberal Way. You lefties like to blow your paycheck on bass boats and beer, then when something bad happens you want a corporation (or the ubiquitous Evil Rich Guy) to blame and a gubbermint program to make it all better.

I for one am getting damned tired of bailing out you parasites. Liberals are pathetic, I wish you would grow up.
No Surprize

Seminole, FL

#872425 Mar 12, 2013
Injudgement wrote:
<quoted text>22% of that 47% with their hands out are 65 and older living on Social Security. Thank you once again for reminding American voters of Repub hate of the elderly.
Idiot is not what you do Injudgement. It's who you are.
Cway

United States

#872426 Mar 12, 2013
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
The Second Persian Gulf War, also known as the Iraq War, Mar.–Apr., 2003, was a largely U.S.-British invasion of Iraq. In many ways the final, delayed campaign of the First Persian Gulf War, it arose in part because the Iraqi government failed to cooperate fully with UN weapons inspections in the years following the first conflict.
In August 1998, Ritter resigned his position as UN weapons inspector and sharply criticized the Clinton administration and the UN Security Council for not being vigorous enough about insisting that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction be destroyed. Ritter also accused UN Secretary General Kofi Annan of assisting Iraqi efforts at impeding UNSCOM's work. "Iraq is not disarming", Ritter said on August 27, 1998, and in a second statement, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike."

However, by 1999, he reversed his opinion.

In June, 1999, Ritter responded to an interviewer, saying: "When you ask the question,'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."

In 2002, Scott Ritter stated that, as of 1998, 90–95% of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed. Technical 100% verification was not possible, said Ritter, not because Iraq still had any hidden weapons, but because Iraq had preemptively destroyed some stockpiles and claimed they had never existed. Many people were surprised by Ritter's turnaround in his view of Iraq during a period when no inspections were made. During the 2002–2003 build-up to war Ritter criticized the Bush Administration and maintained that it had provided no credible evidence that Iraq had reconstituted a significant WMD capability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_wmds#Betwee...

In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program. Some former UNSCOM inspectors disagree about whether the United States could know for certain whether or not Iraq had renewed production of weapons of mass destruction. Robert Gallucci said, "If Iraq had uranium or plutonium, a fair assessment would be they could fabricate a nuclear weapon, and there's no reason for us to assume we'd find out if they had." Similarly, former inspector Jonathan Tucker said, "Nobody really knows what Iraq has. You really can't tell from a satellite image what's going on inside a factory."
Cway

United States

#872428 Mar 12, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
And you continue to deny your messiah's complicity in the mess going forward. Typical liberal ... take no responsibility and deny even in the face of facts.
The facts prove your side blew it. We don't take resopnsibility for our actions? Bull. It's the other way around.

Like 9-11.

Clinton had upgraded the CIA and FBI's anti-terror units. He created a massive stockpile of antidotes for terror agents like anthrax. Several terror attacks were foiled like the one against Los Angeles Airport and another aimed at the Israeli embassy in Washington.

He was gone for over six months when 9-11 struck.

And Bush was warned by Tenet of an impending terror attack six weeks in advance. Tenet's August 6, 2001 PDB even mentioned preparations for hijackings, which of course, is what happened.

And what does President Dumbazz do? Nothing.

And what did you pathetic crybabies do afterwards? Blamed an out-of-office Democrat as usual.

You people are the finger-pointing crybabies of the universe.
Cway

United States

#872429 Mar 12, 2013
BUSH and THE CONSERVATIVE MEDIA LIED US INTO THE IRAQ WAR.

In 2002, Scott Ritter, a former UNSCOM weapons inspector heavily criticized the Bush administration and media outlets for using the testimony of alleged former Iraqi nuclear scientist Khidir Hamza, who defected from Iraq in 1994, as a rationale for invading Iraq;

We seized the entire records of the Iraqi Nuclear program, especially the administrative records. We got a name of everybody, where they worked, what they did, and the top of the list, Saddam's "Bombmaker" [which was the title of Hamza's book, and earned the nickname afterwards] was a man named Jafar Dhia Jafar, not Khidir Hamza, and if you go down the list of the senior administrative personnel you will not find Hamza's name in there. In fact, we didn't find his name at all. Because in 1990, he didn't work for the Iraqi nuclear program. He had no knowledge of it because he worked as a kickback specialist for Hussein Kamel in the Presidential Palace.

He goes into northern Iraq and meets up with Ahmad Chalabi. He walks in and says, I'm Saddam's "Bombmaker". So they call the CIA and they say, "We know who you are, you're not Saddam's 'Bombmaker', go sell your story to someone else." And he was released, he was rejected by all intelligence services at the time, he's a fraud.

And here we are, someone who the CIA knows is a fraud, the US Government knows is a fraud, is allowed to sit in front of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and give testimony as a expert witness. I got a problem with that, I got a problem with the American media, and I've told them over and over and over again that this man is a documentable fraud, a fake, and yet they allow him to go on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and testify as if he actually knows what he is talking about.

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#872430 Mar 12, 2013
No Surprize wrote:
<quoted text>Massages fade, shovelhead dumb and stupid is forever..
Quoth the voice of bitter and redundant experience.

Moving on......

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.

Wethersfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 3 hr _Bad Axe 310,476
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 hr Trey LaTrache 54,497
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 15 hr Ariel Sharon 70,157
News More Advice On Acura TL Transmission Failures A... (Apr '09) 16 hr Verna x 290
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Thu Norbert of Norview 71,944
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Thu Mother Mcreeeeee 20,096
In The War on Police Traffic Stops Have Become ... Wed Culture Auditor 10
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages