Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1433230 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.

PDUPONT

Chicopee, MA

#1159808 Jul 2, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps it's because he belongs to a large segment of the population who also hold traditional values.
Not sure what the big deal is. Reed was Bush's senior advisor in both presidential campaigns. But he also worked on seven presidential campaigns and advised 88 campaigns for governor, U.S. Senate and Congress in 24 states.
He has a Ph.D in American History from Emory University and sat on boards such as University of Georgia School of Public and International Affairs, Northeast Georgia Council of the Boy Scouts of America and Advisory Council of SafeHouse,
Newsweek named Reed one of the top 10 political newsmakers in the nation. Life magazine named him one of the 20 most influential leaders of his generation. And Time magazine named him one of the 50 future leaders of America. The Wall Street Journal called him “perhaps the finest political operative of his generation.”
Again, not sure what the big deal is.
Oh and here's a little tidbit about Ralph Reed;
Jack Abramoff and his partner Scanlon were convicted in a series of corrupt practices in connection to their lobbying work for various Indian Casino gambling tribes. The fees paid to Abramoff and Scanlon for this work are believed to exceed $85 million.
In particular, Abramoff and Scanlon conspired with Washington power broker Grover Norquist and Christian activist Ralph Reed to co-ordinate lobbying against his own clients and prospective clients with the objective of forcing them to engage Abramoff and Scanlon to lobby against their own covert operations. Reed was paid to campaign against gambling interests that competed with Abramoff clients. Norquist served as a go-between by funneling money to Reed.

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#1159809 Jul 2, 2014
In The Right wrote:
<quoted text>
Women are being denied nothing. They are free to receive 16/20 FDA approved devices and can purchase the other four if desired.
The ¨back to the stone age¨ rhetoric by the left is pathetic. Even more pathetic are the women dumb enough to believe the lies.
Dumbass comment. What if you were free to access 16/20 FDA approved cures for your mental illness and were told you had to purchase the other four if desired?
PDUPONT

Chicopee, MA

#1159810 Jul 2, 2014
Nostrilis Waxman wrote:
June 25, 2014, 6:40 PM
IRS official sought audit of Republican senator
Congressional investigators say they uncovered emails Wednesday showing that a former Internal Revenue Service official at the heart of the tea party investigation sought an audit involving a Republican senator in 2012.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/irs-official-soug...
Wrong again stupid! This is just another right wing hair on fire story that turns out to be a whole lot of nothing.
As the actual AP article pointed out, the email exchange between Lerner and Giuliano does not support the claims forwarded in its own headline and by right-wing media. Lerner initially asked if an event organizer's offer to pay for Grassley's wife to attend an event warranted examination. Lerner mentioned the possibility that the offer was inappropriate but did not specify whether she was suggesting that Grassley should be examined.
Giuliano was similarly focused on the event host. He noted that that the invitation from the group was not enough to warrant sending the issue to the IRS Exam Department, because Grassley had not yet accepted the invitation, and said the issue would only warrant further investigation if Grassley later failed to report the offer as income. In her response, Lerner didn't indicate interest in pursuing the issue further.
Lerner questioned whether a group had done something wrong, talked to a colleague, and then dropped the whole thing.
You're an idiot Nosewax; you always have been and always will be!
Carol Dupont

Palm Coast, FL

#1159811 Jul 2, 2014
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh and here's a little tidbit about Ralph Reed;
Jack Abramoff and his partner Scanlon were convicted in a series of corrupt practices in connection to their lobbying work for various Indian Casino gambling tribes. The fees paid to Abramoff and Scanlon for this work are believed to exceed $85 million.
In particular, Abramoff and Scanlon conspired with Washington power broker Grover Norquist and Christian activist Ralph Reed to co-ordinate lobbying against his own clients and prospective clients with the objective of forcing them to engage Abramoff and Scanlon to lobby against their own covert operations. Reed was paid to campaign against gambling interests that competed with Abramoff clients. Norquist served as a go-between by funneling money to Reed.
Oh, and here's a huge tidbit about Barack Hussein Obama: He earned "Lie of the Year" because that's what he is... an experienced liar, but inexperienced, unqualified, inept and totally incapable at knowing how to work with our nation's two-party system, which is why he has failed at leading our nation as president.
LIBERALS IMPORT VOTES

Lillington, NC

#1159812 Jul 2, 2014
By Mike Lillis - 07/02/14 06:01 AM EDT

House Democrats and other immigration reformers are calling on President Obama to go big when it comes to administrative changes in deportation policy.

For months, liberal reform advocates on and off Capitol Hill have urged Obama to tap his executive powers to stop deporting certain qualified groups of undocumented immigrants while waiting to see if House Republicans would take up reform legislation this year.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/211131-immi...
Follow us:@thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

These Out Laws Immigrants are taking Middle Class Jobs. Only
people that the Dem are taxing the Hell out of IS the Middle Class people.
The Dem do not care about the immigrants?
It is All about Votes !!!!!!!
They have got the Greedy on Welfare that can work paid off using the
Middle Class Tax Money.
I do not have a problem with Immigrant that come to the USA LEGAL
like other NATIONALITY !!!!!!!!!!
LIBERALS IMPORT VOTES

Lillington, NC

#1159813 Jul 2, 2014
You know things are bad when a liberal rag like Mother Jones admits that the democrats have consistently failed the middle class. Today, MJ scribe Kevin Drum penned a piece called: If Democrats Want to Appeal to the Working Class, They Really Need Some Policies That Benefit the Working Class. Not the snappiest title, but it gets to the point that democrats are no friend to the working productive people in our society.

The article starts out with the flawed liberal idea that working class people vote against their own interests. It is a widely held belief on the left that working and middle class Americans vote for Republicans even though conservative politicians and policies are allegedly harmful to them.

Give Kevin Drum some credit for asking the question and offering an honest answer:

Why is it that the working class often votes against its own economic interests? Well, let’s compare the sales pitches of the Republican and Democratic parties when it comes to pocketbook issues:

Republicans: We will lower your taxes.

Democrats: We, um, support policies that encourage a fairer distribution of growth and….and….working man….party of FDR….um….

That’s a pretty awesome admission that democrat’s wacko special interests are completely at odds with the needs and wants of the middle class. But he takes it even further:

There are two problems with the Democratic approach. First, it’s too abstract to appeal to anyone. Second, it’s not true anyway. Democrats simply don’t consistently support concrete policies that help the middle class. Half of them voted for the bankruptcy bill of 2005. They’ve done virtually nothing to stem the growth of monopolies and next to nothing to improve consumer protection in visible ways. They don’t do anything for labor. They’re soft on protecting Social Security. They bailed out the banks but refused to bail out underwater homeowners. Hell, they can’t even agree to kill the carried interest loophole, a populist favorite if ever there was one.



Drum goes on to point out how democrats make all sorts of attempts to help the poor, but falls short of pointing out that none of those things actually do help the poor. He does get it right when he observes that all of the democrat-sponsored programs do not benefit,“the working or middle classes except at the margins.”

The democrat response to ignoring the middle class is to try to woo them over with a message of environmentalism. Drum points out what a catastrophic strategy this is:

I’m all for that. But you don’t have to play 11-dimensional chess to figure out how Republicans will respond. They’ll say that Democrats want to raise your taxes. They’ll say Democrats want to take away your plastic bags. They’ll say Democrats want to make us all drive tiny cars or take the train everywhere. In coal country they’ll say Democrats want to take away your jobs.

And then Democrats will wonder yet again why a big chunk of the working class votes for Republicans.
LIBERALS IMPORT VOTES

Lillington, NC

#1159814 Jul 2, 2014
And then Democrats will wonder yet again why a big chunk of the working class votes for Republicans.

And then we get a summation that is party true:

But honestly, Democrats have done virtually nothing for the middle class for three decades now. They’re nearly as reliant on the business community for campaign funding as Republicans. Can we all stop pretending that there’s some deep mystery about why lots of working and middle class voters figure there are no real economic differences between the parties, so they might as well vote on social issues instead?

While he’s entirely right that democrats have ignored the working and middle classes, he misses the point in thinking that there are no real differences economically between the parties. The taxes and regulations that democrats are so fond of hurt working people and small businesses the most. For some strange reason people that work hard want to hang on to as much of their income as possible and don’t want to see the fruits of their labor going to deadbeats and mooches.

Even when liberals admit they are wrong, they still don’t know why they are wrong. The democrats don’t have a PR problem with working and middle class voters; they have a policy problem.

Social issues offer an ideological distraction, but when it comes down to it, people want jobs, a strong economy, and a take-home paycheck that hasn’t been gutted to pay for failed social programs.
PDUPONT

Chicopee, MA

#1159815 Jul 2, 2014
Hey Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>ONE person???? Obama single highhandedly killed Osama bin Laden and declared Al Qaeda was decimated. You are stupid...one person--do you have any underwear to send to your illegals swarming like ants across the order. They need underwear from liberals who crap themselves on a daily basis.
What does Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda have to do with this post dumbass?
You're just another right wing idiot who couldn't mount an effective counterargument if your life depended on it.
Nostrilis Waxman

Torrance, CA

#1159816 Jul 2, 2014
Carol Dupont wrote:
<quoted text> Oh, and here's a huge tidbit about Barack Hussein Obama: He earned "Lie of the Year" because that's what he is... an experienced liar, but inexperienced, unqualified, inept and totally incapable at knowing how to work with our nation's two-party system, which is why he has failed at leading our nation as president.
Oh, and here's a huge tidbit about me. I posted this ^^^^^ above,, using the sockpuppet "Carol Dupont"!!!!

And gave myself some pretty impressive judgits too! Baaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!
PDUPONT

Chicopee, MA

#1159817 Jul 2, 2014
Hey Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>The Democrats did their best to turn Valerie Plame into a martyr even though the only danger that the leftist faced was fewer invitations to cocktail parties. If there was a Par Tay, Plume was there, unless of course they weren't serving cocks and tails. She was a Drunktard.
And as I asked Galt; where's your evidence dipstick? You right wing idiots seem to think that pulling stuff from your anal orifice is proof of anything.
Rahm Jizzbucket Emanuel

Oswego, IL

#1159818 Jul 2, 2014
bo is worst President in US History! Keep celebrating all the lies and failures leftists!
forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1159819 Jul 2, 2014
Flip flop...and anything to get elected...

'Hillary Clinton thinks SCOTUS upholding a law that her husband signed is "deeply disturbing"

'First “don’t ask, don’t tell,” then DOMA, now RFRA: Precisely how many statutes signed by Bill Clinton are the Clintons currently horrified by?'

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/06/30/hill...
forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1159820 Jul 2, 2014

“Never forget 9/11”

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#1159821 Jul 2, 2014
Nostrilis Waxmoron wrote:
<quoted text>
Dumbass comment. What if you were free to access 16/20 FDA approved cures for your mental illness and were told you had to purchase the other four if desired?
You really think all medications are covered by Obamacare? Nope

“Never forget 9/11”

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#1159822 Jul 2, 2014
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again stupid! This is just another right wing hair on fire story that turns out to be a whole lot of nothing.
As the actual AP article pointed out, the email exchange between Lerner and Giuliano does not support the claims forwarded in its own headline and by right-wing media. Lerner initially asked if an event organizer's offer to pay for Grassley's wife to attend an event warranted examination. Lerner mentioned the possibility that the offer was inappropriate but did not specify whether she was suggesting that Grassley should be examined.
Giuliano was similarly focused on the event host. He noted that that the invitation from the group was not enough to warrant sending the issue to the IRS Exam Department, because Grassley had not yet accepted the invitation, and said the issue would only warrant further investigation if Grassley later failed to report the offer as income. In her response, Lerner didn't indicate interest in pursuing the issue further.
Lerner questioned whether a group had done something wrong, talked to a colleague, and then dropped the whole thing.
You're an idiot Nosewax; you always have been and always will be!
Your AP story or probably more likely an op-ed as you failed to link; was a bunch of nonsense.

The IRS was sponsoring the event.

The emails has Giuliano explaining to Lerner that she was sent the wrong invite and emails to Lerner her invite.
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#1159823 Jul 2, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>
Something like 40% of women who use OCs take them for some medical purpose.
Good thing Hobby Lobby covers 16 other oral contraceptives.
Seriously...hysteria just causes more problems. We have plenty on our plates already. And no solutions in sight.
We should probably stop all this pettiness and put our heads together to find solutions. Or we all go down together.
So the woman who cannot take birth control pills and whose doctor recommends and IUD, cannot obtain one through Hobby Lobbys insurance; since she probably only makes $8.00 an hour, the device would probably cost her a months pay. I hope that woman sues Hobby Lobby.
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#1159824 Jul 2, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
Okay, I've caught up enough for now. And it really is getting late.
But looking forward to any responses tomorrow,
The irony is that the Morning After Pill is birth control, in a stronger dose. The IUD is a birth control device. These are not abortion.
How is it possible that this case, based on misinformation, was heard by the Supreme Court when it's not even valid?

This is a chipping away at the rights of women regarding abortion; a small step, but a step nonetheless and you know it. The SC should have never taken this case. It is a beginning precedent for imposing religious beliefs upon others. Like a Theocracy, or your beloved Sharia Law. What's next for Hobby Lobby? Firing women who have had abortions? Or stoning them in their parking lots?
Oh Dat Barry Soetoro

New York, NY

#1159825 Jul 2, 2014
Homer wrote:
<quoted text>Reagan - Amnesty for millions, this all goes back to him.
He thought for sure they'd become Republican voters.
He was an idiot wasn't he?
Reagan foolishly thought the Democrats would keep their word about stronger enforcement.

And, according to Ronald Reagan himself, as told to his trusted long-time friend and U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, the biggest mistake of his presidency was signing the 1986 amnesty for what turned out to be more than half the five million illegal immigrants in the country.

Reagan was uncomfortable with the amnesty but was persuaded by some of the leaders of his own party (still living) that it would only affect a small number of illegal immigrants and would assure that Congress would follow through with more vigorous enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.

The misnamed Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 was touted by its supporters as “comprehensive immigration reform” that would GRANT AMNESTY ONLY TO A FEW long-settled immigrants and STRENGTHEN BORDER SECURITY and internal immigration enforcement against employers who were hiring illegal immigrants.

“Never forget 9/11”

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#1159827 Jul 2, 2014
forks_make_us_fat wrote:
Flip flop...and anything to get elected...
'Hillary Clinton thinks SCOTUS upholding a law that her husband signed is "deeply disturbing"
'First “don’t ask, don’t tell,” then DOMA, now RFRA: Precisely how many statutes signed by Bill Clinton are the Clintons currently horrified by?'
http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/06/30/hill...
Hillary, the lawyer, stated the ruling banned birth control.
Oh Dat Barry Soetoro

New York, NY

#1159828 Jul 2, 2014
Homer wrote: Reagan - Amnesty for millions, this all goes back to him.
He thought for sure they'd become Republican voters.
He was an idiot wasn't he?"

Internal enforcement was critical to Reagan. He knew that the real key to stopping illegal immigration was to cut off the job magnet at the employment place. He was also honest enough to call what he believed would only be a small amnesty by its real name—amnesty. He did not try to deceive the American people into thinking it was not really an amnesty, a deception much in vogue with many politicians today.

There are various accounts of how many amnesties were expected with passage of the 1986 amnesty. Figures range from 300,000 (Gingrich, who voted for it) to about 2.1 million. Some reasonable estimates center around 1.2 million. The actual result was 2.7 million.

Close to one third of the amnesties given were based on DOCUMENT FRAUD.

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
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 39 min Patriot AKA Bozo 10,112
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 hr zef 311,906
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 8 hr Joe Fortuna 257,132
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 20 hr Chosen Traveler 32,404
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite Sep 18 Go Blue Forever 1
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Sep 10 yess 201,881
News UCLA Basketball: Grad Transfer Octeus to Bruins (Jun '14) Aug 31 Trojan 2
More from around the web