Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1420620 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.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#1151520 Jun 16, 2014
flack wrote:
Impacts on industry
While the costs of greenhouse gas regulations are broadly spread over the entire economy, some industries are hit harder, according to the study's hypothetical carbon tax. These would include electric power, fertilizer, cement and coal-related industries like mining and transportation. Lime, a key ingredient in the manufacture of cement, would see the highest cost increase at 15 percent.
"The extent to which these industries are ultimately disadvantaged depends on the extent to which they are able to pass costs on to customers," the research noted.
Still, these most highly affected industries contributed only 1 percent to the total gross output of the U.S. economy in 2011, according to the study.
"This suggests that the adverse incidence of such a tax can be ameliorated through highly targeted financial assistance, without reducing the incentive benefits of a carbon tax," the paper stated.
Another question is which regions bear the most or least cost of carbon regulations. This is a bit more complicated to examine, as the coal mining companies operating in Wyoming may have owners in San Francisco or New York, Kolstad said.
Research shows that while the total out-of-the-pocket carbon tax costs may be similar across U.S. regions, the price of electricity may vary considerably. Thus, one could expect higher electrical costs in coal-dependent states like Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama.
As for whether the United States adopts greenhouse gas regulations, he is pessimistic in the short run – but optimistic in the long run.
"Policy windows happen in which the conditions are right for congressional action. We are not in one now, but I am confidant these will arise at some point in the future," Kolstad said.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-03-carbon-burden-he...
Let me put this in prospective. My father in law showed me his gas bill yesterday, from the lovely state of Illinois, county of Cook, city of Park Ridge, where the Hillary Rotten Clinton is from. The amount of gas he used cost him $2.90--the rest of the $36.00 was fees and taxes. This is a one month bill for a stove he turned on twice. This is how to bankrupt a country.

Since: Mar 14

Orlando, FL

#1151521 Jun 16, 2014
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
You as usual are the idiot, for anyone to even attempt to glorify a moron like Bush is a sad reflection on your fanaticism. Dave is exactly right while yours was the worst case ever for making a coward out to be a brave hero. You imbeciles chastised and belittled a man that volunteered to place himself in harms way [Kerry] and glorify a man that escaped into the ANG and then went AWOL. As an idiot like you would say...SHEEEZE
John Kerry single-handedly disgraced every honorable soldier in front of Congress also placed him in harm's - via the draft just like him.

Vietnam was an ugly war escalated by a Democrat, Lyndon B. Johnson.

We all wanted it to end for that reason.

Kerry just managed to rub it in everyone's face at the expense of our soldiers, most of whom were not guilty as Kerry alone had charged.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#1151522 Jun 16, 2014
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
You as usual are the idiot, for anyone to even attempt to glorify a moron like Bush is a sad reflection on your fanaticism. Dave is exactly right while yours was the worst case ever for making a coward out to be a brave hero. You imbeciles chastised and belittled a man that volunteered to place himself in harms way [Kerry] and glorify a man that escaped into the ANG and then went AWOL. As an idiot like you would say...SHEEEZE
Now, let's see, who would I believe more? Some Corporal Captain want to be or a respected Colonial in the Air Force? I think I'll go with the Colonial.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#1151523 Jun 16, 2014
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong as usual, that wasn't a political war, or for oil, or for anyone's daddy, our objective was as we were told to stop Communist aggression. Our President and VP didn't get richer off their lies about oil. Vietnam was a stupid war, no doubt. But it has nothing in common with Iraq other that people died needlessly. Iraq will go down in history as the biggest blunder in history. And Bush- Cheney will be look upon as idiots with an agenda and didn't care how many died and all for personal gain.
You are a liar. It was political on the face of it. You even said it yourself, it was to stop Communism. This is the second day in a row. I have heard all about the Vietnam war from a Special Ops Mountain top Soldier. Want to talk about the race riots going on over there because of the democrat communists in the USA?

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#1151524 Jun 16, 2014
Colonel before some anal retentive libtard pounces!

Since: Mar 14

Orlando, FL

#1151525 Jun 16, 2014
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>No woman in political history was treated as bad as Sarah Palin. No one. Who did that? O'bamaandhillaryasswipes.
In fact, according to Hillary's own confession, it was the Obama administration who fired the first shot in the war on women.

Hillary was approached and asked to smear Palin after she was thrown under the bus herself for the inexperienced but cool and black guy.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#1151526 Jun 16, 2014
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>Let me put this in prospective. My father in law showed me his gas bill yesterday, from the lovely state of Illinois, county of Cook, city of Park Ridge, where the Hillary Rotten Clinton is from. The amount of gas he used cost him $2.90--the rest of the $36.00 was fees and taxes. This is a one month bill for a stove he turned on twice. This is how to bankrupt a country.
These libtards on here have no idea the costs of their policies.

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#1151527 Jun 16, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay prune face (and hope to gracious that isn't your real face), for the umpteenth time, the original mission was to topple Saddam's regime.
The original mission was, in fact, accomplished.
Unfortunately, there are no crystal balls in war. The resurgent reaction and al Qaeda claiming Iraq the frontlines gave us no choice but to fight them on their own turf.
But that was not the original mission.
The surge took care of this unexpected turn of events for which you can justly criticize the Bush administration.
Even so, Iraq was stabilized after the surge, Iraqis were voting for elected leaders for the first time in four decades and Iraq had a fighting chance to make it on their own. They just needed a few residual troops and a real U.S. leader to ensure what was gained was not lost.
Iraq could have been an ally in that region instead of another hostile territory. There's still hope but little chance of that happening now.
So your contention is that WMD's and their threat to America was not why we invaded Iraq. If it was then this horrendous miscalculation that caused the deaths of over 4,000 American troops would go down in history as the dumbass presidential decision in our lifetime, can we agree on that? That's an easy "Yes" I assume.
Now let's move on to your contention that we invaded Iraq to topple Saddam. You know, of course, that Saddam was an enemy of al Qaeda and toppling him was NOT in our best interest. But you contend the humanitarian mission to impose one Muslim sect's domination over a different Muslim sect was worth American blood.
That's pretty generous of you, dumb but generous.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1151528 Jun 16, 2014
Restraint, Iraq, and the “Surge”

I am now reading Barry Posen’s new book, Restraint. In one section he makes an important point about U.S. military presence in Iraq and its relationship with Iraq’s political dysfunction that is relevant to the current debate:

It is striking that having waged a vicious civil war, Iraqis did not during the U.S. occupation, nor do they now, feel any pressure to settle matters that could lead, indeed may already have led, to a resurgence of fighting. It is hard to escape the suspicion that the presence of U.S. forces permitted key actors to defer hard decisions, rather than providing a safety net to insure them as they made difficult compromises, which was the hope. It seems that the parties simply took advantage of the U.S. presence to rest and refit for fights to come [bold mine-DL].(p. 50)

So it makes no sense to believe that a small residual force would have produced the desired political reconciliation or positive changes in Maliki’s behavior. A continued U.S. presence would just have provided another excuse for Maliki and his allies not to make the reforms needed to facilitate reconciliation between the country’s different groups. Posen also judges the “surge” to be a failure on its own terms:

The surge must be judged on its strategic results; did it produce a stable, democratic, and functional Iraqi government, friendly to the United States? The answer is no….But regarding the most critical political issues, passage of legislation on the distribution of the country’s oil wealth, the integration of those formerly connected to the Saddam regime into Iraqi society and politics, the integration of Sunni Arabs into the security services…and the settlement of internal territorial disputes with the Kurdish region, little or nothing was accomplished prior to the departure of U.S. combat forces.(p. 49-50)

So when you hear an old Iraq hawk harping on the success of the “surge” or how the U.S. had “won” in Iraq prior to withdrawing, remember that it isn’t true. Unfortunately, the latest events in Iraq remind us just how false the mythology surrounding the “surge” has always been.

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

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#1151529 Jun 16, 2014
Colonel Wambough further states a likely scenario.

We have not been attacked in the United States after 9/11 because we
have a president and an administration that have been proactive in
going after the national security threats to the United States. Just
think about how our national security would likely have been handled
by the anti-war left of the Democrat party and Sen. Kerry. We would
probably still be debating what to do in the United Nations;
Afghanistan would likely still be under control of the Taliban; Iraq
would still be under the control of Saddam Hussein, and cities in the
United States would have come under attack on multiple occasions as
terrorist organizations were further emboldened by our meek responses.
And it wouldn't be surprising if we were negotiating with al Qaeda and
other terrorist organizations to preclude further attacks on our
cities.

Does this sound familiar?

Since: Mar 14

Orlando, FL

#1151530 Jun 16, 2014
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
I have all the respect in the world for Bush 1 ......"W" was and is an draft dodging, dope smoking, alcohol drinking, idiot and a total coward like you.The only thing I have against the first Bush is he managed to get all of that special treatment for his chickenshit son.
So what branch of the military did Obama serve again?

And didn't Obama confess in his own book that he smoked and used cocaine in college? And admitted seeking out Marxist professors to boot?

You have no concept of cowardice apparently. We have a perfect example sitting in the White House right now.

To compare the "do nothing and hide under our desks" Commander-in-Chief we have to GW "let's roll" Bush is just plain ludicrous.

So you're nothing but a liberal hypocrite. Which is redundant.

Try and snap out of it. You're bringing us all down.
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1151531 Jun 16, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Kerry was in country 4 months.
Soo just another attempt to belittle a man that placed himself in harms way for his country. How long was Bush there??? Simply for political reasons you judge both men...One did the right thing, the other chose the cowards way out...SHEEEEZE.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#1151532 Jun 16, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>
In fact, according to Hillary's own confession, it was the Obama administration who fired the first shot in the war on women.
Hillary was approached and asked to smear Palin after she was thrown under the bus herself for the inexperienced but cool and black guy.
Hillary supporters were just as bad as O'bama supporters, but now Hillary is saying she did, maybe not herself personally, but her supporters were vile. Every bit as vile as O'bama supporters. The leftists will always tell us who they fear. Now they are going after Scott Walker, my governor, saying he is unelectable because he is too white. Who would have thought?

Since: Mar 14

Orlando, FL

#1151533 Jun 16, 2014
Nostrilis Waxmoron wrote:
<quoted text>
So your contention is that WMD's and their threat to America was not why we invaded Iraq. If it was then this horrendous miscalculation that caused the deaths of over 4,000 American troops would go down in history as the dumbass presidential decision in our lifetime, can we agree on that? That's an easy "Yes" I assume.
Now let's move on to your contention that we invaded Iraq to topple Saddam. You know, of course, that Saddam was an enemy of al Qaeda and toppling him was NOT in our best interest. But you contend the humanitarian mission to impose one Muslim sect's domination over a different Muslim sect was worth American blood.
That's pretty generous of you, dumb but generous.
My contention is that you have an extremely narrow vision when it comes to the real world.

Just like your president. He didn't want to be mine.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1151534 Jun 16, 2014
One of the enduring myths of the Iraq War is that George W. Bush’s “surge” of 30,000 US troops into Iraq in 2007, reduced the number of attacks on US troops and effectively defeated the Sunni-led insurgency in Baghdad. This is entirely false. The surge was largely a public relations campaign that was designed to conceal the activities of US-funded and trained Shia death squads that were killing or expelling millions of Sunnis from Baghdad in what turned out to be one the greatest incidents of ethnic cleansing in the modern era.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/13/the-my...

Since: May 11

Carlisle, PA

#1151535 Jun 16, 2014
flack wrote:
Colonel Wambough further states a likely scenario.
We have not been attacked in the United States after 9/11 because we
have a president and an administration that have been proactive in
going after the national security threats to the United States. Just
think about how our national security would likely have been handled
by the anti-war left of the Democrat party and Sen. Kerry. We would
probably still be debating what to do in the United Nations;
Afghanistan would likely still be under control of the Taliban; Iraq
would still be under the control of Saddam Hussein, and cities in the
United States would have come under attack on multiple occasions as
terrorist organizations were further emboldened by our meek responses.
And it wouldn't be surprising if we were negotiating with al Qaeda and
other terrorist organizations to preclude further attacks on our
cities.
Does this sound familiar?
It sounds familiar. Another right whiner ex military who thinks they know everything.

If Iraq would be still under control ofd Sadam Hussien, he would still be pinned down with no fly zones and 4500 soldiers would be alive & we would be a trillion less in debt.

The group invading Iraq is not just Al Qaeda.
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1151536 Jun 16, 2014
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>Hillary supporters were just as bad as O'bama supporters, but now Hillary is saying she did, maybe not herself personally, but her supporters were vile. Every bit as vile as O'bama supporters. The leftists will always tell us who they fear. Now they are going after Scott Walker, my governor, saying he is unelectable because he is too white. Who would have thought?
Oh do you mean the same Scott Walker that is under investigation now, the one with all of the far right agendas, that idiot? Looney Birds of a feather.

Since: Mar 14

Orlando, FL

#1151537 Jun 16, 2014
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reveals in her new book that Barack Obama’s team asked her to attack Alaska Governor Sarah Palin after Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) chose her as his running mate in the 2008 presidential race.

"[The Obama camp] immediately issued a dismissive statement and reached out to me in hopes I would follow suit,” she wrote.“But I wouldn’t.”

“I was not going to attack Palin just for being a woman appealing for support from other women,” she wrote.“I didn't think it made political sense, and it didn't feel right. So I said no."

----

Bam!!

Who really started the war on women? All you liberal hypocrites?
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#1151538 Jun 16, 2014
flack wrote:
Colonel Wambough further states a likely scenario.
We have not been attacked in the United States after 9/11 because we
have a president and an administration that have been proactive in
going after the national security threats to the United States. Just
think about how our national security would likely have been handled
by the anti-war left of the Democrat party and Sen. Kerry. We would
probably still be debating what to do in the United Nations;
Afghanistan would likely still be under control of the Taliban; Iraq
would still be under the control of Saddam Hussein, and cities in the
United States would have come under attack on multiple occasions as
terrorist organizations were further emboldened by our meek responses.
And it wouldn't be surprising if we were negotiating with al Qaeda and
other terrorist organizations to preclude further attacks on our
cities.
Does this sound familiar?
Yeah__it sounds like familiar right wing jagov slop.

Like much of the other troll sht that piled up here today?

Who are these new teaparty mutts? Are they the old mutts with new names? A couple of them sound even dumber. Not as dumb as you though.

Since: May 11

Carlisle, PA

#1151539 Jun 16, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>
John Kerry single-handedly disgraced every honorable soldier in front of Congress also placed him in harm's - via the draft just like him.
Vietnam was an ugly war escalated by a Democrat, Lyndon B. Johnson.
We all wanted it to end for that reason.
Kerry just managed to rub it in everyone's face at the expense of our soldiers, most of whom were not guilty as Kerry alone had charged.
Actually Kerry talked about those that committed atrocities.

Kerry helped the war end sooner saving countless soldier lives.

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 Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Rosa_Winkel 256,631
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 2 hr Mrs thompjacksiju 201,889
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 4 hr Earthling-1 10,070
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 16 hr Blue November 311,629
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Aug 27 Trojan 32,332
mark moel loan house is here for you to uptain ... (Sep '13) Aug 14 Alex 17
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Aug 11 Ceren 9
More from around the web