Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1382931 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.

Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#1018130 Nov 4, 2013
Buroc Millhouse Obama wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a feeling not many Democrats will want Obama "helping" them with the 2014 elections!
I can't wait!
Stop playing with your son!

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1018131 Nov 4, 2013
To Obama, "middle class" means people living off the government with what it decides to give to them that is taken from everyone else.
To Americans, "middle class" means people working for a living.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#1018132 Nov 4, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
the price of Obama's wars won't get pushed onto the next admin whilst nutjobs go on about the next guy's 'deficit'.
there is that.
the ObamaKKKare deficit will continue forever unless the turkey is terminated...
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#1018133 Nov 4, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Galt loves it when a plan comes together...
Typical hijacking terrorist!
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1018134 Nov 4, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
111 Democrats were on board.
It might have helped if 1 or 2 Republicans had been on board passing health care legislation affecting us all.
Enough Already on HealthCare.gov . Don’t You Remember Medicare Part D?

Republicans certainly deserved a few weeks of ‘toldja so!’ about the site’s awful rollout. But why can’t they start helping their constituents figure it out now, as Democrats did with Bush’s Medicare Part D?

I refer, of course, to the Medicare Part D implementation in late 2005 and early 2006. That was the big prescription drug bill passed in 2003. You remember—it’s the one where the Republicans didn’t have the votes in the House, even though they controlled the House, and Speaker Tom DeLay held the floor open for 15 minutes after the bell rang as his lieutenants went around and badgered and threatened some GOP members until they changed their vote from nay to aye. My, how at home DeLay would have been with the Tea Partiers.

Anyhow. Most Democrats voted against the bill. In the House just 16 of 203 Democratic members voted yes. In the Senate, however, 11 of 48 Democrats voted for the new Bush entitlement. First, let’s just stop right there. Could you imagine 16 and 11 Republicans ever voting for an Obama legislative priority, something that was clearly Obama’s “baby” in the same way that the Part D bill was Bush’s? There’d be no end to the slobbering over Republicans for being so reasonable. As I recall, the Democrats were attacked at the time for not supporting the bill enough.

So they didn’t. And then, two years later, the rollout came. It was a mess. In mid-October 2005, the Bush administration announced a delay. Reason? It was Yom Kippur, and evidently no one wanted to offend elderly Jews who wouldn’t be using their computers. Right. So it was delayed. But a month later, as Jon Perr noted recently at Crooks & Liars, the planned comparison-shopping website still wasn’t up and running. Even after it finally was, it was confusing and a mess. Some sample headlines:“Web-based Comparison of Prescription Plans Delayed,” The Washington Post; “Glitches Mar Launch of Medicare Drug Plan,” The Wall Street Journal; “President Tells Insurers to Aid Ailing Medicare Drug Plan,” The New York Times.

Needless to say, some of the same people now trying to put the hex on Obamacare spent 2006 pooh-poohing—you guessed it—“glitches,” as Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) put it back then. I’m sure they’d say they’re different things, and it’s true the Affordable Care Act is a bigger undertaking. But they’re precisely similar in spirit—big, new government programs that depended largely on citizen interaction via personal computer. And the ACA fixes what was the biggest problem created by Part D, the so-called doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage. So the Obama bill corrects what was conspicuously awful about the Bush bill. Yes, they are different!

But the biggest difference is not how Republicans behaved back then but how Democrats did. Most Democrats voted against the law. But they did not then sue the Bush administration and try to take the thing to the Supreme Court and get it invalidated. And then, when the start-up was a cock-up, Democrats didn’t go around saying it was proof the law had to go. They tried to fix it. Hillary Clinton, then a senator, said:“I voted against it, but once it passed I certainly determined that I would try to do everything I could to make sure that New Yorkers understood it, could access it, and make the best of it.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10...

but when you're dealing with people who have no morals or ethics you end up with a group of them getting together on inauguration day planning a coup of the sitting government. and heaven forbid that the new guy tries to pass off a conservative idea as his own.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#1018135 Nov 4, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
sure. as soon as the poll numbers flip.
so when do you think the nutjobs will quit ruling the GOP?
as soon as McCain, Graham, and McConnell are retired...
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#1018137 Nov 4, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
ObamaKKKare fans fail to recognize the value of the freedom to use the physician of your choice, without the need to be referred by a gatekeeper...
poor galt.

he should be against healthcare... period.

that would make more sense.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#1018139 Nov 4, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> I agree. Fiscal policy should be front and center.
that was the whole point of the tea party movement, but then clowns like Akin moved in...
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#1018140 Nov 4, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
You're both wrong. The three worst mass muderers in the history of civilization were Marxist communists. Hitler is number 4 on the list, being a fascist.
So, tell us about the most recent event when Christians hijacked a bunch of airliners and killed more Americans than ever in history.
Tell us about the most recent event when jews killed every man, woman and child in a village.
These are just about every day events for muslims, moron.
Now, why would Obama want to be part of the most murderous group of people in the world today? Would it be because he's just another mass murderer waiting for the opportunity to slaughter a defenseless population?
Obama would have to murder 60 million people to equal Mao.
Obama would have to murder 20 to 30 million people to equal Stalin.
Obama would have to murder over 12 percent of the population of the United States to equal Ho Chi Minh.
Obama would have to murder over 10 million people to equal Hitler.
Obama would have to murder 3000 people in one day to equal Al Qaeda.
Is this within reach fof those controlling Obama?
Well, I can tell you about the guy who killed children in defense of Christianity son!

Since: May 11

Newville, PA

#1018141 Nov 4, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> About no 3. It's in the law. Take it up with the democrats who wrote.
It is obvious that the policy owner should be responsible to return any subsidy money if he understated his income.

Who else should it be?

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#1018142 Nov 4, 2013
"Turn out the lights, the Tea Party is over"

2010 was the high water mark. Since then we've seen Teabags popularity decline below measurable levels.

Noew they've lost elections in NJ, and are on the cusp of being humiliated in VA.

The darling of the Teabags, Michelle Bachmann, is retiring from politics.

But at least she's not quitting like the stinking dead fish from Alaska.

The parallel universe here on Topix is filled with true Teabag believers.

Losers all. Which is why y'all stay on here, to commisserate with others as insipidly ignorant as you are.

HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT IN 2016!!
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#1018143 Nov 4, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not purchased insurance from the exchanges nor would I qualify for a subsidy if I would..
sure, you have Medicare, much better than anything under ObamaKKKare...
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#1018144 Nov 4, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama is fckn the middle class, so gotta fight back in kind against you street rabble...
Rightwingers have been fcking people over since long before Obama. You ever do business with one? I won't, but if you ever do you better have eyes in the back of your head, the will rip you off, rob you blind, oh it will all be 'legal' but doesn't mean it's necessarily ethical.

Watch your back, just sayin

Since: Jul 08

We will not go gentle

#1018145 Nov 4, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> They have low followers because liberal propaganda always crumbles under the microscope of truth. They simple cannot lie every day and keep listeners. People are not as dumb as you libtards think they are.
I actually did fall off my chair and [email protected] It's quite obvious that the Beck, Limbaughtomy, Shamity audiences really are as dumb as their materialist, dishonest idols think they are--they listen lies, ill-will, and sedition day in/day out, 24/7. I don't know what they're so violent, but I can't stand the sound of their voices long enough to listen to them.
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#1018147 Nov 4, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately for you, the only ones doing the screwing and lying and stabbing in the back are on your side of the fence.
Obamacare is screwing millions of Americans without insurance after being lied to and the exchanges are stabbing them in the back.
How can you deny that?
I'm talking about individuals, rightwing businessmen. The government(Republicans and Democrats) have been screwing us for years.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#1018148 Nov 4, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
that was the whole point of the tea party movement, but then clowns like Akin moved in...
Well the TEA Party should tell them to shut the hell up. Or make it clear that they will not support anyone who campaigns on anything besides fiscal policy.

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1018149 Nov 4, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Galt believes that Conservatives have no chance as long as they carry the burden of religious fundamentalism and radical anti-abortion....
What you apparently can't seem to come to terms with is religious and anti-abortion people are on both sides of the fence. Just as there are non-religious and pro-choice people.

The religious and anti-abortion people on the left are silent out of blind loyalty. And you rarely hear anyone on the right making an issue out of religion or abortion except when the left declares an invisible war - and then the liberal media cherry picks who gets the media attention because they think they are DuPont and their product has to be non-stick.

Whether or not the religious and anti-abortion blacks switch parties following the lead of the pastor who said the left doesn't represent their values anymore remains to be seen.

But they're still there. As are whites who stay on the left side of the fence regardless of their values not being represented.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#1018150 Nov 4, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
Enough Already on HealthCare.gov . Don’t You Remember Medicare Part D?
Republicans certainly deserved a few weeks of ‘toldja so!’ about the site’s awful rollout. But why can’t they start helping their constituents figure it out now, as Democrats did with Bush’s Medicare Part D?
I refer, of course, to the Medicare Part D implementation in late 2005 and early 2006. That was the big prescription drug bill passed in 2003. You remember—it’s the one where the Republicans didn’t have the votes in the House, even though they controlled the House, and Speaker Tom DeLay held the floor open for 15 minutes after the bell rang as his lieutenants went around and badgered and threatened some GOP members until they changed their vote from nay to aye. My, how at home DeLay would have been with the Tea Partiers.
Anyhow. Most Democrats voted against the bill. In the House just 16 of 203 Democratic members voted yes. In the Senate, however, 11 of 48 Democrats voted for the new Bush entitlement. First, let’s just stop right there. Could you imagine 16 and 11 Republicans ever voting for an Obama legislative priority, something that was clearly Obama’s “baby” in the same way that the Part D bill was Bush’s? There’d be no end to the slobbering over Republicans for being so reasonable. As I recall, the Democrats were attacked at the time for not supporting the bill enough.
So they didn’t. And then, two years later, the rollout came. It was a mess. In mid-October 2005, the Bush administration announced a delay. Reason? It was Yom Kippur, and evidently no one wanted to offend elderly Jews who wouldn’t be using their computers. Right. So it was delayed. But a month later, as Jon Perr noted recently at Crooks & Liars, the planned comparison-shopping website still wasn’t up and running. Even after it finally was, it was confusing and a mess. Some sample headlines:“Web-based Comparison of Prescription Plans Delayed,” The Washington Post; “Glitches Mar Launch of Medicare Drug Plan,” The Wall Street Journal; “President Tells Insurers to Aid Ailing Medicare Drug Plan,” The New York Times.
Needless to say, some of the same people now trying to put the hex on Obamacare spent 2006 pooh-poohing—you guessed it—“glitches,” as Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) put it back then. I’m sure they’d say they’re different things, and it’s true the Affordable Care Act is a bigger undertaking. But they’re precisely similar in spirit—big, new government programs that depended largely on citizen interaction via personal computer. And the ACA fixes what was the biggest problem created by Part D, the so-called doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage. So the Obama bill corrects what was conspicuously awful about the Bush bill. Yes, they are different!
But the biggest difference is not how Republicans behaved back then but how Democrats did. Most Democrats voted against the law. But they did not then sue the Bush administration and try to take the thing to the Supreme Court and get it invalidated. And then, when the start-up was a cock-up, Democrats didn’t go around saying it was proof the law had to go. They tried to fix it. Hillary Clinton, then a senator, said:“I voted against it, but once it passed I certainly determined that I would try to do everything I could to make sure that New Yorkers understood it, could access it, and make the best of it.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10...
but when you're dealing with people who have no morals or ethics you end up with a group of them getting together on inauguration day planning a coup of the sitting government. and heaven forbid that the new guy tries to pass off a conservative idea as his own.
unlike ObamaKKKare, Medicare Part D was and is a voluntary program...
Laney F

Jamaica, NY

#1018152 Nov 4, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
sure. as soon as the poll numbers flip.
so when do you think the nutjobs will quit ruling the GOP?
The plan is now to exhume Ted Kennedy, like in Weekend with Bernie. He's going to be the Lion, I mean Lyin of the Republicans and we are going to call him The One.(Not sure which secretary we'll have him drown yet). Next up will be to have him commit sex acts on the desk in the Oval office with a subordinate. And then, the plan will be to find a foreign exchange student whose only previous recognition was in a gang of potheads and who went to college disguised as a foreign aide student but we'll have his records sealed. As long as all along we promise free late term abortion for convenience and paid for by others, we'll do fine and be culturally popular amongst the Occupy types who believe in wealth redistribution.

Since: May 11

Newville, PA

#1018153 Nov 4, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it.
You write like just another dupe on the government dole.
Prove it how, state my income?

Look, Mr Subsidized salary, subsidized health insurance,it takes a lot of nerve you who lives off of a subsidized industry to speak ill of anyone else getting help from the government.

Whenever you decide to man up & make it on your own, then we can talk.

You are another dupe on the government dole.

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 Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 31 min Into The Night 59,471
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 hr But Hay 20,291
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 2 hr ThomasA 311,154
News Suspect Had Quit Rehab (Mar '08) Tue Ken Burke 135
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) Tue Ize Found 70,598
News West Hartford Seniors Win Gold At State Table T... Mon Coolstory 1
News Shots Fired After Bank Robbery, Police Chase In... (Mar '08) Mon JoeBakRotsInHell 87
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages