Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1641589 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.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1079780 Feb 14, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
If Congress gives the administration leeway, then the administration is not rewriting the law.
By the way, what you support here is EXACTLY how Hitler was able to become a dictator, moron.

Why are you promoting the United States become a totalitarian dictatorship? Is that one of the "fundamental changes" the Democrats have in mind?

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1079781 Feb 14, 2014
Weather and Climate are not the same....

'News followed “very closely” by American public: 1996–2012'

Most recent polling year, 2012

an..

Weather is number one....

not climate...

crime
community
sports, in that order...

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content...

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1079782 Feb 14, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Not one dime. just 40 billion of them.
4 billion a year in subsidies.
Prove it.

Show us the legislation that authorizes subsidies paid to any American oil company. So far, you haven't been able to find it.
Or, show us the payments. What company receive how much when?

Subsidies to American oil companies is an urban legend. They don't exist. There is no such thing as a subsidy paid to an American oil company.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1079783 Feb 14, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor people don't make hundreds of billions in profits you stupid sh*t.
But, here in the constitutional republic of the United States of America, a poor person can succeed and become wealthy, thanks to capitalism.

Before capitalism, the only way to amass wealth was to conquer and enslave populations. Capitalism made it possible to amass wealth by serving humans.
Perhaps this is why you hate capitalism. You can't enslave people in a capitalist system, and that person you never liked can become a millionaire while you fester and rot in your own mindless hatred of everything that demonstrates you have an archaic medieval conservative mentality that dreams of enslaving people so you can dominate the defenseless.

Since: May 11

Carlisle, PA

#1079784 Feb 14, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
If the law is so vague it depends on subjective rewriting for application, then that law is uconstitutional for vegueness and ambiguity. The Constitution prevents the certain chaos that comes when one administration applies their subjective rewriting of a law to suit their agenda, then the subsequent administration with a different agenda rewrites the law in a completely different way. This causes inherent instability.
The Constitution does not allow the President to write and rewrite any law.
The Supreme Court ruled that, for any law to be constitutional, the people the law applies to must be able to understand what is required by the law just by reading the law. If the President has to write the specifics to complete the law, then the law is unconstitutional.
The President cannot write their own laws in the United States of America. So says the Constitution.
Now, why are the Democrats rebelling against the Constitution?
Wow, you are really off the wagon today.

Tell me about how Bush never ever made any decisions about immigration.

Here is an example.

The resolution legislation passed that gave Bush the authority to wage military action in Iraq.

Tell me where in that resolution it specifies how to invade Iraq? How many troops, where they would be stationed when the attack would take place.

It gave Bush complete leeway in dealing with Sadam
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1079785 Feb 14, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, what you support here is EXACTLY how Hitler was able to become a dictator, moron.
Why are you promoting the United States become a totalitarian dictatorship? Is that one of the "fundamental changes" the Democrats have in mind?
Executive Order 12,333: Permission to Spy on the Whole World

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/12...

Rand Paul should be suing Reagan.

Since: May 11

Carlisle, PA

#1079786 Feb 14, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it.
Show us the legislation that authorizes subsidies paid to any American oil company. So far, you haven't been able to find it.
Or, show us the payments. What company receive how much when?
Subsidies to American oil companies is an urban legend. They don't exist. There is no such thing as a subsidy paid to an American oil company.
Been listed.

You are lying.

Everyone knows there are oil subsidies. The Republicans fought in Congress to keep them.

Are you calling all Republicans liars??

Your hero, Paul Ryan said there were subsidies.

I can understand that it must be embarrassing for you to know that you just can't get a real job. One that I don't have to support through my tax dollars.
M Stein

Jamaica, NY

#1079787 Feb 14, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, what you support here is EXACTLY how Hitler was able to become a dictator, moron.
Why are you promoting the United States become a totalitarian dictatorship? Is that one of the "fundamental changes" the Democrats have in mind?
Today's Democrats are a different breed of the JFK days, or any days.

The same people who spent 2001 to 2009 screeching about Bush's powers run amok are oblivious to Obama ZERO who defies the Constitution as America fails.

Remember when Obammy said this:

“I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS THAT WE’RE FACING RIGHT NOW HAVE TO DO WITH GEORGE BUSH TRYING TO BRING MORE AND MORE POWER INTO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND NOT GO THROUGH CONGRESS AT ALL, AND THAT’S WHAT I INTEND TO REVERSE when I’m President of the United States of America.”

Today's New Democrats, are a dangerous, seedy Bunch who worship the Cult of Personality over substance and experience.

Led by President Barack Hussein Obama, today’s Democrat Party has about as much in common with the old Democrats as Obama has with JFK. In fact, Kennedy would now be considered a DINO, a Democrat in Name Only.

Granted, all politicians are flawed, a consequence of the reality that all human beings are flawed, but today’s “Party of the People” including almost everyone associated with it have become so immersed in extremist liberal thinking that they have become A CORRUPT CARICATURE OF THEIR FORMER SELVES, UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH RIGHT FROM WRONG AND INCAPABLE OF RATIONAL THOUGHT.(As evidenced here by posters who WORSHIP THE ONE, no matter his failed policies and refusal to admit when they are failing and change course—unless for political reasons like postponing the harmful consequences of ObamaCare).

Obama recently boasted,“That’s the good thing as a President, I can do whatever I want,” an astoundingly arrogant statement especially in view of his billing as a constitutional scholar. Even (some) high schoolers know that America’s Constitution was designed by the Founders to safeguard against any future leader’s pretensions to absolutism with a separation of powers and checks and balances among our executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

Most of Obama’s Democrat Party believes he has the constitutional right to impose his will via unlimited executive actions. At least one Democrat organization firmly adheres to THE MISGUIDED PRINCIPLE OF BLATANT, POLITICAL HYPOCRISY.

North Carolina’s NAACP chapter scheduled a demonstration to protest “racist” voter ID laws which that it contends discriminate against people of color even though identification is required for everything from securing a library card to making a bank withdrawal. Yet, in its “Do’s and Don’ts”[sic] instructions to marchers, the NAACP cautions participants to be certain to bring a photo ID and “keep it on your person at all times,” apparently because it regards marching and protesting are more important than voting.

DEMOCRAT HOUSE MINORITY LEADER NANCY PELOSI, WHO LED HER TROOPS FOR EIGHT YEARS IN DEMEANING, RIDICULING, AND UNDERMINING PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, IS NOW COMPLAINING THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN “DISRESPECTING” PRESIDENT OBAMA. Proving once again she is an overachieving, lying nincompoop with either the memory of a gnat or the soul of a terrorist, Pelosi was doubly peeved over that disrespect since Democrats “did not treat President Bush this way.”

Remember Obammy’s campaign slur about clinging to their guns and religion?

Today’s Democrats cling to their lies and failed ideologies.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1079788 Feb 14, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you are really off the wagon today.
Tell me about how Bush never ever made any decisions about immigration.
Here is an example.
The resolution legislation passed that gave Bush the authority to wage military action in Iraq.
Tell me where in that resolution it specifies how to invade Iraq? How many troops, where they would be stationed when the attack would take place.
It gave Bush complete leeway in dealing with Sadam
The authority to invade Iraq came in 1991. The war Saddam Hussein started then had never ended. There was only a cessation of agressive advancing military action, coincident with the application of sanctions from the UN, which ended up benefitting Saddam Hussein and allowed him to rebuild his war machine with money from the UN's oil-for-food scam.
However, the Democrats gave the President the authority to resume agressive advancing military action, dumbass, even though constitutionally that was not required.

Additionally, the Constitution gives the President a different set of authority over military actions than it gives the President over domestic actions.

Which brings up a question. Since it's obviouis Obama violated the War Powers Act law, why isn't Obama in prison for violating that law? Did Obama receive a Presidential Pardon?

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1079789 Feb 14, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> carol you are talking to that idiot that stole your name last year.
It's hard to keep track of all the name stealers. Should have known not to parlay with a new poster who thinks he's funny. Won't do it again.

Since: May 11

Carlisle, PA

#1079790 Feb 14, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
But, here in the constitutional republic of the United States of America, a poor person can succeed and become wealthy, thanks to capitalism.
Before capitalism, the only way to amass wealth was to conquer and enslave populations. Capitalism made it possible to amass wealth by serving humans.
Perhaps this is why you hate capitalism. You can't enslave people in a capitalist system, and that person you never liked can become a millionaire while you fester and rot in your own mindless hatred of everything that demonstrates you have an archaic medieval conservative mentality that dreams of enslaving people so you can dominate the defenseless.
So, you are saying poor people make billions in profits?

So, you are this anti-big government person that thinks we would be handing out subsidies to corporations making billions ion profits.

How do you justify that????

How does an honest TeaParty member justify it? Or is the Tea Party just an anti-Obama party & not really interested in debt & helping us recover.

How does the Republican Party justify voting to cut 80 billion from food stamps while forking over 4 billion in subsidies to oil companies making tens of billions in profits?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1079791 Feb 14, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Been listed.
You are lying.
Everyone knows there are oil subsidies. The Republicans fought in Congress to keep them.
Are you calling all Republicans liars??
Your hero, Paul Ryan said there were subsidies.
I can understand that it must be embarrassing for you to know that you just can't get a real job. One that I don't have to support through my tax dollars.
<projection>

You are lying again. You have never been able to find any legislation that authorizes paying a subsidy to any American oil company. The only thing you proved is that you're so ignroant you can't even define the word "subsidy".

So...
Show us the legislation that authorizes subsidies paid to any American oil company. So far, you haven't been able to find it.
Or, show us the payments. What company receive how much when?
Subsidies to American oil companies is an urban legend. They don't exist. There is no such thing as a subsidy paid to an American oil company.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1079792 Feb 14, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it.
Show us the legislation that authorizes subsidies paid to any American oil company. So far, you haven't been able to find it.
Or, show us the payments. What company receive how much when?
Subsidies to American oil companies is an urban legend. They don't exist. There is no such thing as a subsidy paid to an American oil company.
seems you have a messaging problem.

Should Oil Companies Continue to Receive Government Subsidies?

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/03/30/should-o...

right wingers love the term.

Call the Liberals' Bluff: Oil Subsidies Should Go

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2011/...

Obama challenges Republicans on oil subsidies

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/26/obama-chall...

Senate Rejects Attempt to End Oil Subsidies

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142...

so an 'urban legend' seems to be a reality to some conservatives.

but maybe i should consider that some conservatives, much like you, are constantly trying to present urban legend as fact.

Since: May 11

Carlisle, PA

#1079793 Feb 14, 2014
M Stein wrote:
<quoted text>Today's Democrats are a different breed of the JFK days, or any days.
The same people who spent 2001 to 2009 screeching about Bush's powers run amok are oblivious to Obama ZERO who defies the Constitution as America fails.
Remember when Obammy said this:
“I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS THAT WE’RE FACING RIGHT NOW HAVE TO DO WITH GEORGE BUSH TRYING TO BRING MORE AND MORE POWER INTO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND NOT GO THROUGH CONGRESS AT ALL, AND THAT’S WHAT I INTEND TO REVERSE when I’m President of the United States of America.”
Today's New Democrats, are a dangerous, seedy Bunch who worship the Cult of Personality over substance and experience.
Led by President Barack Hussein Obama, today’s Democrat Party has about as much in common with the old Democrats as Obama has with JFK. In fact, Kennedy would now be considered a DINO, a Democrat in Name Only.
Granted, all politicians are flawed, a consequence of the reality that all human beings are flawed, but today’s “Party of the People” including almost everyone associated with it have become so immersed in extremist liberal thinking that they have become A CORRUPT CARICATURE OF THEIR FORMER SELVES, UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH RIGHT FROM WRONG AND INCAPABLE OF RATIONAL THOUGHT.(As evidenced here by posters who WORSHIP THE ONE, no matter his failed policies and refusal to admit when they are failing and change course—unless for political reasons like postponing the harmful consequences of ObamaCare).
Obama recently boasted,“That’s the good thing as a President, I can do whatever I want,” an astoundingly arrogant statement especially in view of his billing as a constitutional scholar. Even (some) high schoolers know that America’s Constitution was designed by the Founders to safeguard against any future leader’s pretensions to absolutism with a separation of powers and checks and balances among our executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
Most of Obama’s Democrat Party believes he has the constitutional right to impose his will via unlimited executive actions. At least one Democrat organization firmly adheres to THE MISGUIDED PRINCIPLE OF BLATANT, POLITICAL HYPOCRISY.
North Carolina’s NAACP chapter scheduled a demonstration to protest “racist” voter ID laws which that it contends discriminate against people of color even though identification is required for everything from securing a library card to making a bank withdrawal. Yet, in its “Do’s and Don’ts”[sic] instructions to marchers, the NAACP cautions participants to be certain to bring a photo ID and “keep it on your person at all times,” apparently because it regards marching and protesting are more important than voting.
DEMOCRAT HOUSE MINORITY LEADER NANCY PELOSI, WHO LED HER TROOPS FOR EIGHT YEARS IN DEMEANING, RIDICULING, AND UNDERMINING PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, IS NOW COMPLAINING THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN “DISRESPECTING” PRESIDENT OBAMA. Proving once again she is an overachieving, lying nincompoop with either the memory of a gnat or the soul of a terrorist, Pelosi was doubly peeved over that disrespect since Democrats “did not treat President Bush this way.”
Remember Obammy’s campaign slur about clinging to their guns and religion?
Today’s Democrats cling to their lies and failed ideologies.
So, you stole this one from Gene Lalor, another person who discovered they can make money of the rabid right by being anti-gay, anti-global warming, anti-immigration, and etc.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1079794 Feb 14, 2014
HOMEOPINIONCOMMENTARYRADIOLOG INWEEKLY ADSSUBSCRIBECLASSIFIEDSDIGITAL
DEMING: Another year of global cooling
Falling temperatures are giving climate alarmists chills
Global warming is nowhere to be found. The mean global temperature has not risen in 17 years and has been slowly falling for approximately the past 10 years. In 2013, there were more record-low temperatures than record-high temperatures in the United States.
At the end of the first week in January, a brutal spell of cold weather settled over most of the country. Multiple cold-temperature records were shattered across the country. Some sites experienced frigid conditions not seen since the 19th century. Chicago and New York City broke temperature records set in 1894 and 1896, respectively. These extremes were not singular, but exemplary of conditions throughout much of the continent. Temperatures in Chicago were so cold that a polar bear at the Lincoln Park Zoo had to be taken inside.
The onset of polar conditions over the United States was also a reminder that cold weather in general is more inimical to human welfare than warm weather. The operation of power grids, gas pipelines and oil refineries was disrupted. Passengers on Amtrak trains were left stranded, and thousands of flights were delayed or canceled. By Jan. 7, the media were reporting at least 21 deaths directly related to the cold.
The January freeze caused $3 million in damage to vineyards in Ohio. Citrus crops in Florida apparently escaped damage, but California growers were not so lucky. A weeklong spell of cold weather in early December damaged up to half of the state’s $1.5 billion citrus crop. California farmers may (or may not) take consolation in the fact that their state government is attempting to further cool the climate by mandating a reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions.
As frigid conditions settled over the nation, global-warming alarmists went into full denial mode. We were emphatically lectured that singular weather events are not necessarily indicative of long-term climate trends. True enough, but haven’t we been repeatedly told that weather events such as hurricanes Sandy and Katrina are unequivocal proof of global warming? If we’re really in the middle of a “climate crisis,” is it not remarkable that low-temperature records from the 19th century were shattered?
Weather extremes also seem to bring out the lunatic fringe. Of course, when we’re discussing global warming, it’s difficult to tell where the mainstream stops and the fringe begins. We were subjected to the oxymoronic explanation that frigid weather was, in fact, caused by global warming. According to Time magazine, cold temperatures in the United States were a result of global warming forcing the polar vortex southward. But in 1974, the same Time informed us that descent of the polar vortex into temperate zones was a harbinger of a new Ice Age.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1079795 Feb 14, 2014
It is true that the extent of sea ice at the North Pole is slightly below the 30-year average. However, an event near Antarctica reminded us that sea ice there is near an all-time high. In late December, a ship of global-warming researchers became stuck in Antarctic sea ice. The ice was so thick that two icebreakers sent to rescue the scientists were unable to break through. Passengers had to be removed by helicopter. Despite all the claims that the poles are melting and polar bears drowning, the global extent of sea ice remains stubbornly and significantly above the long-term mean. Apparently, the buildup of heat from global warming is producing more ice, not less, in defiance of both the laws of physics and common sense.
It seems now that everyone is qualified to have an opinion on global warming. In a recent column, theology professor Susan Thistlethwaite explained that “frigid weather” was an “example of the kind of violent and abrupt climate change that results from global warming.” Sometimes, I just feel so stupid. I thought cold weather was attributable to the annual phenomenon known as “winter.” The good professor also claimed that cold weather in the United States is a punishment sent by God for “our sinful failure to take care of the Creation.”
If the current cooling trend continues for a few more years, the theory of global warming faces imminent extinction. It will then join a long list of other expired environmental doom-and-gloom predictions, including overpopulation, peak oil and nuclear winter.
David Deming is a geophysicist, professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma, and the author of “Black & White: Politically Incorrect Essays on Politics, Culture, Science, Religion, Energy and Environment”(CreateSpace, 2011).

Since: May 11

Carlisle, PA

#1079796 Feb 14, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
<projection>
You are lying again. You have never been able to find any legislation that authorizes paying a subsidy to any American oil company. The only thing you proved is that you're so ignroant you can't even define the word "subsidy".
So...
Show us the legislation that authorizes subsidies paid to any American oil company. So far, you haven't been able to find it.
Or, show us the payments. What company receive how much when?
Subsidies to American oil companies is an urban legend. They don't exist. There is no such thing as a subsidy paid to an American oil company.
A subsidy s a financial benefit.

However,I will take your approach to trying to narrowly define "subsidy" as an admittance that you know that oil companies get financial benefits(subsidies).

This also means you've been lying all along about oil industry subsidies.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1079797 Feb 14, 2014
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's hard to keep track of all the name stealers. Should have known not to parlay with a new poster who thinks he's funny. Won't do it again.
For registered posters watch the post count to tell the difference. The others just pay attention to the style of posts. If they are out of character then probably an impostor.

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1079798 Feb 14, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor people don't make hundreds of billions in profits you stupid sh*t.
Why do liberals worry more about the very small 1% or 2% of the population in the upper echelon who also happen to provide incomes for thousands of other people rather than trying to figure out ways to lift up those on the bottom with opportunities and encouraging better life choices to improve their circumstances?

Sounds more like envy than wanting to make a bad situation better for those in poverty..

Will bringing down the top do anything to help lift up the bottom?

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#1079799 Feb 14, 2014
flack wrote:
Found out I lost a good friend last night!
LUKE BRYAN LYRICS
"Drink A Beer"
When I got the news today
I didn't know what to say.
So I just hung up the phone.
I took a walk to clear my head,
This is where the walking led
Can't believe you're really gone
Don't feel like going home
So I'm gonna set right here
On the edge of this pier
Watch the sunset disappear
And drink a beer
Funny how the good ones go
Too soon, but the good Lord knows
The reasons why, I guess
Sometimes the greater plan
Is kinda hard to understand
Right now it don't make sense
I can't make it all make sense
So I'm gonna set right here
On the edge of this pier
Watch the sunset disappear
And drink a beer
So long my friend
Until we meet again
I'll remember you
And all the times that we used to...
... set right here on the edge of this pier
And watch the sunset disappear
And drink a beer
Drink a beer,
Drink a beer.
Yeah
May your friend rest in peace and for you to find peace. Luke Bryant wrote that song when his brother died.

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.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr Eddie M 319,972
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 7 hr Trojan 34,819
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Sat Star1 11,800
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Nov 9 Randy-From-Wooster 201,885
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Sep '17 Alice Meng 13
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sep '17 The pope 258,482
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Sep '17 Love 292
More from around the web