Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1656014 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.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#1095151 Mar 11, 2014
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>That pos is also a birther who claims to live in the Northwest but posts on a Southeast topix thread.
A real scumbag that one is. Not too smart either!!!
Smart enough to occupy your calabash.
That posting location thing really has you baffled, huh. Do you see me traveling back and forth, coast to coast, just to fck with you?

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1095152 Mar 11, 2014
Fake passports said to have been used by two Iranians.

Since: May 11

Blain, PA

#1095153 Mar 11, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
195 House approved bills are sitting on Reid's desk. How many of you leftists give a shit?
How many call for a repeal, defunding, or weakening of the ACA?

The House keeps passing bills with poison pills just to dupe dumbass right whiners like you.

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#1095155 Mar 11, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>well, if she as attempting to report on the Benghazi scandal, her editors most likely had a problem with her non-factual reporting, as there was no scandal, than her bias....
it is fun when you look at stories with a factual bias. the facts show she was just chasing lies. it would seem she just sucked as an investigative reporter.
Her editors most likely had a problem with her not helping them sweep the ongoing scandals in this administration under the rug but, instead, doing her job.

The liberal media deliberately squashed Hillary Clinton in favor of Obama, their chosen candidate, who was a cool, celebrity-like, black guy without any experience leading or governing anything to become the president of our nation, and they have been protecting him and his lies ever since.

If you think a far rightwing conservative president would have come out of even one of those scandals as squeaky clean as this one, you have serious reality problems.
NuculurNUToption

Satellite Beach, FL

#1095156 Mar 11, 2014
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
FOOL.
GREY GHOST.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1095157 Mar 11, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>
If a far rightwing conservative president lied about a video being behind a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 only to find out he knew full-well it was, in fact, a terrorist attack on the night it happened but lied to win an election, you wouldn't find that corrupt?
If a far rightwing conservative president was behind a powerful organization such as the IRS deliberately treating liberal individuals and groups as the "enemy" by harassing them and denying them in disproportionate numbers the same rights as conservative groups, and the head of the IRS under that rightwing conservative president who clearly considered liberals as the "enemy" took the Fifth under oath - not once, but twice - you wouldn't find that corrupt?
If a far rightwing conservative president pushed his own unpopular health care reform on the people with a strictly Republican vote and lied to get it passed - misleading the people over and over and over again - about something as important as keeping their health insurance and their doctors, you wouldn't find that corrupt?
If a far rightwing president read about scandals involving his own administration in the newspapers feigning outrage and promising to get to the bottom of it and, with the help of a far rightwing liberal media sweeping them under the rug, declared they were all "phony" with no "there" there, you wouldn't find that corrupt?
Is that specific enough?
how in the world did that help him win an election? do you realize how stupid that statement is?(probably not, formyour previous posts...)

the IRS was jsut doing their job, if you understood the issue, you would know that. it wasn't just one political side that was targeted for proper scrutiny...

see? you are like that shity reporter.you don't know the facts so your assumptions from other people acting normal seems like a conspiracy to you.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1095158 Mar 11, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>
Her editors most likely had a problem with her not helping them sweep the ongoing scandals in this administration under the rug but, instead, doing her job.
The liberal media deliberately squashed Hillary Clinton in favor of Obama, their chosen candidate, who was a cool, celebrity-like, black guy without any experience leading or governing anything to become the president of our nation, and they have been protecting him and his lies ever since.
If you think a far rightwing conservative president would have come out of even one of those scandals as squeaky clean as this one, you have serious reality problems.
as pted out, no scandals. just grave dancers, political witch hunts and fools like you following along mindlessly. but then how else could you follow, really?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1095159 Mar 11, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
Smart enough to occupy your calabash.
That posting location thing really has you baffled, huh. Do you see me traveling back and forth, coast to coast, just to fck with you?
not smart enough to not get caught out in your own bullshit time after time.....

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#1095160 Mar 11, 2014
Emeem wrote:
It's hilarious watching Woodtick try to rein in the embarrassing ignorance of his fellow conservatives. Its like watching a guy trying to herd cats.
Even funnier seeing you believe he's conservative. You leftists are a clever bunch.
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1095161 Mar 11, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
195 House approved bills are sitting on Reid's desk. How many of you leftists give a shit?
The House approved bills are a sad reflection on the idiots that passed most of them. I'll name a few of the idiot bills. Cutting taxes on those that make over $500,000...Increasing oil subsidies....Adding more tax loopholes for those making over $200,000....Expiring the payroll tax cut on those making under $100,000....Buying 50 new stealth fighters at a cost of $50 billion per plane...Calling for air strikes on targets in Iran.....Reaffirming "In God we trust" is our national motto... Other words idiot bills by idiots.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1095162 Mar 11, 2014
70% of fed spending goes directly to individuals…
Posted on 10 March, 2014 by Dylan
cheers_2286516b

(by John Merline, Investor’s Business Daily)– Buried deep in a section of President Obama’s budget, released this week, is an eye-opening fact: This year, 70% of all the money the federal government spends will be in the form of direct payments to individuals, an all-time high.

In effect, the government has become primarily a massive money-transfer machine, taking $2.6 trillion from some and handing it back out to others. These government transfers now account for 15% of GDP, another all-time high. In 1991, direct payments accounted for less than half the budget and 10% of GDP.

What’s more, the cost of these direct payments is exploding. Even after adjusting for inflation, they’ve shot up 29% under Obama.

ObamaCare, Medicare…

Where do these checks go? The biggest chunk, 38.6%, goes to pay health bills, either through Medicare, Medicaid or ObamaCare. A third goes out in the form of Social Security checks. Only 21% goes toward poverty programs — or “income security” as it’s labeled in the budget — and a mere 5% ends up in the hands of veterans.

Interestingly, despite Obama’s frequent pledges to reduce income inequality, the share of direct payments going toward “income security” has dropped from 25% in 2009 to 20% in 2014.(The average share from 1980 to 2008 was 25.4%.)

Obama’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget calls for this share to drop to just 17% by 2019, as his programs devote more and more federal tax money to middle-class entitlement programs such as ObamaCare.

Here’s another way to look at it: If all these federal direct payments went only to the poor, every person living in poverty today would receive an annual check worth $55,900.
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1095163 Mar 11, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Man! You got FDS really bad don't you. Go seek help. A obsession like that isn't healthy.
Coming from a space cadet like you that is hilarious.

Since: May 11

Blain, PA

#1095164 Mar 11, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Restrain the federal government to what is constitutionally allowed. Return every thing else to the states and the people, just as it says. 90% of the federal government is a waste of money and most could be done cheaper and better at the local level. By the way defense of the country is a constitutional duty of the federal government. Welfare and food stamps are not.
Flack - Constitutional expert.

So what part of the general government are you planning on keeping that you can fund with just 10% of the current need?

If you cut every but the military, you are cutting it by 1/3rd. So as you add items, you cut the military even more.

This is a example of how stupid you people are. You make these wild statements that are easily shown to be ridiculous.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1095165 Mar 11, 2014
bbl

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#1095166 Mar 11, 2014
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Carol, as usual you're wrong. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, was in response to a Supreme Court case, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) that determined that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. However, in the case of City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that RFRA could not be constitutionally applied to state laws. RFRA therefore does not apply to state laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Have there been any cases concerning gay marriage in Arizona? No stupid! There haven't even been any cases concerning discrimination based on sexual orientation. The right wing Arizona legislature put forth this law for no other reason than to put an official seal of approval on religious bigotry.
What cases have there been where atheists have denied services to Christians? You just pulled that out of your anal orifice like you always do.
You were a teacher? Seriously? How did you even graduate from college with such sloppy reasoning and lack of factual basis for your positions?
Well, true to character, you're either innocently being misled or intentionally lying about the facts - just like your beloved president and the leaders of your party.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993,(November 16, 1993), is a United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and was passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes.

No wonder you're so confused about everything else. This wasn't even hard to understand or grasp.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#1095167 Mar 11, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>are they good bills? do you want more gov't laws? usually you say you don't...
seems you bullshit even about your own personal beliefs as much as you do about your life and everything else...
Good bills? Why are you, as a 'staunch conservative', comfortable letting our mortal enemy decide which bills are good and which aren't?
Isn't it easier for you to just repeat, "Republicans haven't offered any solutions...."?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1095168 Mar 11, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
Even funnier seeing you believe he's conservative. You leftists are a clever bunch.
you could show that i am not a conservative, you already would have.

and somehow you would have probably managed to work a lie into it. probably something about how you were the guy who shot Bin Laden...
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1095169 Mar 11, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you still call me a liar if I was a black communist President?? A**hole.
Stupid is impossible to hide, I see you don't even try.
Realtime

Cape Canaveral, FL

#1095170 Mar 11, 2014
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
FOOL.
LMAO, wait til he wakes up tomorrow.

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#1095171 Mar 11, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>
If a far rightwing conservative president lied about a video being behind a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 only to find out he knew full-well it was, in fact, a terrorist attack on the night it happened but lied to win an election, you wouldn't find that corrupt?
If a far rightwing conservative president was behind a powerful organization such as the IRS deliberately treating liberal individuals and groups as the "enemy" by harassing them and denying them in disproportionate numbers the same rights as conservative groups, and the head of the IRS under that rightwing conservative president who clearly considered liberals as the "enemy" took the Fifth under oath - not once, but twice - you wouldn't find that corrupt?
If a far rightwing conservative president pushed his own unpopular health care reform on the people with a strictly Republican vote and lied to get it passed - misleading the people over and over and over again - about something as important as keeping their health insurance and their doctors, you wouldn't find that corrupt?
If a far rightwing president read about scandals involving his own administration in the newspapers feigning outrage and promising to get to the bottom of it and, with the help of a far rightwing liberal media sweeping them under the rug, declared they were all "phony" with no "there" there, you wouldn't find that corrupt?
Is that specific enough?
correction...

If a far rightwing president read about scandals involving his own administration in the newspapers feigning outrage and promising to get to the bottom of it and, with the help of a "far rightwing media" sweeping them under the rug, declared they were all phony....

(kneejerk reaction to put the word "liberal" in front of "media"...force of habit...because they always go together.)

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 UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 min Chosen Traveler 35,081
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 min Monday Blues 321,901
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 2 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 11,894
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Nov 26 Okboy 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