Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1643134 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.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1197738 Sep 5, 2014
Realtime, RIR is nothing but a small lake right now!!!!
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1197739 Sep 5, 2014
No Surprize wrote:
<quoted text>Hillary hated by Muslims...
you want them to like her? what's up with that? do you want your politicians to be liked by Middle East Muslims? i can hear it now.....'Hey! The Muslims Like Mitt. Back off!'

funny.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1197740 Sep 5, 2014
Opinions
Mitt Romney: The need for a mighty U.S. military
By Mitt Romney September 4
The writer is the former governor of Massachusetts. In 2012, the Republican Party nominated him for president of the United States.
Russia invades, China bullies, Iran spins centrifuges, the Islamic State (a terrorist threat “beyond anything that we’ve seen,” according to the defense secretary ) threatens — and Washington slashes the military. Reason stares.
Several arguments are advanced to justify the decimation of our defense. All of them are wrong.
The president asserts that we must move to “a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity.” The old order, he is saying, where America’s disproportionate strength holds tyrants in check and preserves the sovereignty of nations, is to be replaced.
It is said that the first rule of wing-walking is to not let go with one hand until the other hand has a firm grip. So, too, before we jettison our reliance on U.S. strength, there must be something effective in its place — if such a thing is even possible. Further, the appeal to “common humanity” as the foundation of this new world order ignores the reality that humanity is far from common in values and views. Humanity may commonly agree that there is evil, but what one people calls evil another calls good.
There are those who claim that a multipolar world is preferable to one led by a strong United States. Were these other poles nations such as Australia, Canada, France and Britain, I might concur. But with emerging poles being China, Russia and Iran, the world would not see peace; it would see bullying, invasion and regional wars. And ultimately, one would seek to conquer the others, unleashing world war.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1197741 Sep 5, 2014
continue...Some argue that the United States should simply withdraw its military strength from the world — get out of the Middle East, accept nuclear weapons in Iran and elsewhere, let China and Russia have their way with their neighbors and watch from the sidelines as jihadists storm on two or three continents. Do this, they contend, and the United States would be left alone.
No, we would not. The history of the 20th century teaches that power-hungry tyrants ultimately feast on the appeasers — to use former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour’s phrase, we would be paying the cannibals to eat us last. And in the meantime, our economy would be devastated by the disruption of trade routes, the turmoil in global markets and the tumult of conflict across the world. Global peace and stability are very much in our immediate national interest.
Some insist that our military is already so much stronger than that of any other nation that we can safely cut it back, again and again. Their evidence: the relative size of our defense budget. But these comparisons are nearly meaningless: Russia and China don’t report their actual defense spending, they pay their servicemen a tiny fraction of what we pay ours and their cost to build military armament is also a fraction of ours. More relevant is the fact that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is significantly greater than our own and that, within six years, China will have more ships in its navy than we do. China already has more service members. Further, our military is tasked with many more missions than those of other nations: preserving the freedom of the seas, the air and space; combating radical jihadists; and preserving order and stability around the world as well as defending the United States.
The most ludicrous excuse for shrinking our military derives from the president’s thinking:“Things are much less dangerous now than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago.” The “safer world” trial balloon has been punctured by recent events in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Gaza, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria and Iraq.“Failures of imagination” led to tragedy 13 years ago; today, no imagination is required to picture what would descend on the United States if we let down our guard.
The arguments for shrinking our military fall aside to reveal the real reason for the cuts: Politicians, and many of the people who elect them, want to keep up spending here at home. Entitlements and programs are putting pressure on the federal budget: We either cut defense, or we cut spending on ourselves. That, or raise our taxes.
To date, the politicians have predictably voted to slash defense. As Bret Stephens noted in Commentary magazine this month, the Army is on track to be the size it was in 1940, the Navy to be the size it was in 1917, the Air Force to be smaller than in 1947 and our nuclear arsenal to be no larger than it was under President Harry S. Truman.
Washington politicians are poised to make a historic decision, for us, for our descendants and for the world. Freedom and peace are in the balance. They will choose whether to succumb to the easy path of continued military hollowing or to honor their constitutional pledge to protect the United States.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#1197742 Sep 5, 2014
Jake McGillicuddy wrote:
The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142...
Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "THERE IS NO CONVINCING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that human release of ... carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
We could go on, but the larger point is plain. THERE IS NO BASIS for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.
How about something from a peer reviewed scientific journal rather than from the OP Ed page of the WSJ by two people who work for the Koch brothers and one of whom said there are no ill effects from moderate smoking.

It might be a tad more credible
baloney identifier man

Springfield, MA

#1197743 Sep 5, 2014
Joey Dumbass:“Hey Carl, didya hear ‘bout dem euro dudes who live the next block over? They’re in a downward spiral and hurting BAAAADDDD!”

Carl Clueless:“Jeeez, really? I knew they were in a kind of desperation situation and in a downward vortex, but just why is that? Don’t they have a system like us?”

Joey Dumbass:“Huh? Oh, yeah, well according to the NY Times it seems they bought like tons of stuff on credit gave it out to their friends and family and even total strangers. It was, like, crazy. The sadder your tale, the more free stuff they gave you. They maxed out their credit cards and did all kinds of creative accounting. Amazing!”

Carl Clueless:‘Not like us, eh Joey? We are keepin’ ahead of the curve. Printing money is the way to go. Everyone knows that. Plus we import all our impoverished folks straight from Mexico, no questions asked. They know our free sh*t plan will work, cause we got a method.”

Joey Dumbass:“Hell yes! I got all kinds of debt, same as you and every other American, all courtesy of my uncle Sam. Maxed out too. But no problem, just get more cards while Sam prints more paper. I have some cards in my kid’s names, others in my grandkid’s names. Some even have blank spaces to fill in their kid’s names! It’s the good life, eh Carl?”

Carl Clueless:“Sure Joey. It’s just a magic pie that appears from thin air, the gubmit divides it fairly and we charge it to the future, which never comes, cause they charge it to the future too. What can go wrong?”

Joey Dumbass:“Absolutely nothing! It’s fool-proof. And you and me sure ain’t no fools, right?”

Carl Clueless:“You said it!...... Well, I’m off to get my share of the pie. Factory shut down three years ago, so it’s a good thing my Democrat rep put me on the gravy train. Life is like a dream.”

Joey Dumbass:“Me too. Endless free sh*t that never has to be paid for. What a concept! How come those euro jerks don’t get it? LOL!”

Carl Clueless:“They must be dumb asses!”

Joey Dumbass:“Or totally clueless!”
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1197744 Sep 5, 2014
No Surprize wrote:
<quoted text>Veterans do refer to Certificate "DD Form 214" or DD14, short for a 214. ghost never in a Vets club.
No veteran refers to the DD-214 as anything other than that..You know nothing about me or the military. Then why hasn't one veteran yet defended you? Easy answer you are a lying dumb ass that wouldn't know a DD-214 if you saw one. And I belong to numerous Veterans organization. Take your beating like a man or at least pretend to be one. PSYCHO.

Since: May 11

Chambersburg, PA

#1197745 Sep 5, 2014
flack wrote:
Removing the IPCC’s exaggerations removes the climate problem.
The economic question: Is it cheaper to regulate CO2 or to adapt to the consequences of the warming it causes? The Stern Report is to climate economics as the IPCC’s assessment reports are to climate science. It concludes that the cost of doing nothing will be 5-20% of 21st-century GDP. However, it makes two fundamental mistakes. First, its central estimate is that there will be 5 C° of warming over the next century – half as much again as the IPCC’s central estimate, and seven and a half times our own estimate. Secondly, it adopts a time-preference discount rate of only 0.1%, when HM Treasury’s usual rate is 3.5%. Adjusting for the correct discount rate brings the welfare loss from total inaction down to around 2% of 21st-century GDP, which is consistent with the peer-reviewed economic literature (Stern’s report was not peer-reviewed). Accordingly, we know the upper bound on the cost of any present or proposed policy to mitigate CO2 emissions: if the equivalent cost is more than 2% of 21st-century GDP, then economically speaking the policy is not worth implementing.
Let us look at a mitigation policy directly relevant to the Czech Republic, though not in any way under its control. The European Union’s unelected Kommissars control its environmental policies, and have decreed that there shall be carbon trading. The World Bank estimates the cost of EU carbon trading at US $92 billion a year. After discounting at 3.5%, that is just shy of $900 billion over ten years.
The policy is intended to cut emissions in the EU by 20% in 10 years. Yet, even if this reduction is achieved, the policy will forestall just 0.003 C° of global warming over the ten-year period, at a mitigation cost-effectiveness approaching US $300 trillion per Celsius degree of warming forestalled.
If all measures to forestall global warming over the period were this cost-ineffective, almost 10% of global GDP over the period would be consumed solely on climate mitigation. That is five times the cost of the welfare loss arising from doing nothing at all about the climate over the period. Accordingly, the EU carbon trading scam is cost-ineffective.
We have excluded the very heavy cost of all the other EU measures to mitigate global warming over the period, such as windmills, solar panels, carbon taxes, fuel duty increases, etc, as well as the cost of the market distortion and consequent job destruction that carbon trading is already causing. By the same token, we have also excluded any co-benefits that may be associated with carbon trading (though it is hard to imagine any substantial co-benefits).
We can apply the same considerations to individual projects. For instance, the largest wind farm in the world is the Thanet array, off the coast of Kent. The $2 billion subsidy for this one wind farm, if redeployed to support a nuclear power station, could have provided 13 times the electricity for twice the wind farm’s 20-year lifetime, paying back the subsidy in full. However, the windfarm will forestall 0.00002 C° of global warming. Its mitigation cost-effectiveness is almost one quadrillion dollars per Celsius degree of warming forestalled. Forestalling all CO2-driven warming expected over the period by measures as cost-ineffective as Thanet would consume more than a quarter of global GDP to 2030.
We conclude that the cost of forestalling global warming greatly exceeds the cost of doing nothing about it.
When Flack does not provide the source of his cut & paste, you know he is too embarrassed to actually admit he believes t.

And what if 50 years from now the temperatures are muc higher than the author of your article claims?

What then?

But hey, lets take the lowest estimate to make your case that it is cheaper to do nothing.

But Flack is used to putting his children at risk to save money so why not with global warming?
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#1197746 Sep 5, 2014
flack wrote:
Realtime, RIR is nothing but a small lake right now!!!!
It'll be OK.

That's where the chase begins__and it's an ISC property.

They'll fix it

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#1197747 Sep 5, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because anyone with any common sense or pays even the least bit of attention knows you're wrong. You're struggling to stay in the loop with current events.
So what did Bush lie about specifically? That the UN didn't believe either?
that the aluminum tubes could be used for a uranium enrichment centifuge, when our own DOE experts said no they couldn't-(that report was buried)
that he had stockpiles of sarin, a nerve agent
that he had mobile biological weapons labs and we knew where they were
that he had the ability to restart his nuclear program at any moment
that he attempted to buy yellow cake from Nigeria
that he was working with al Qaeda, jand that representatives of his gov't met with al Qaeda officials in the Czech republic
He alluded to Saddam's participation in the attacks of 9/11
forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1197748 Sep 5, 2014
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
Look idiot, you made fun because it took 20 years to become a Captain, yet when I reminded you that most that spend 2o years retire as a Sergeant. Your stupid is on par with Surprize. Most everyone that knows me thinks that my story is worthy of a writing about and that's what I'm attempting to do, I always under estimate the density of you baggers. Along with the insane jealousy. But you two are the perfect end tables, just not as smart.
Did you retire as a Commissioned officer or a 'sarge'?

Nothing wrong with being enlisted....nothing to be ashamed of...
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1197749 Sep 5, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
When Flack does not provide the source of his cut & paste, you know he is too embarrassed to actually admit he believes t.
And what if 50 years from now the temperatures are muc higher than the author of your article claims?
What then?
But hey, lets take the lowest estimate to make your case that it is cheaper to do nothing.
But Flack is used to putting his children at risk to save money so why not with global warming?
You nailed him Dave, old Flake is totally transparent.
forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1197750 Sep 5, 2014
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
No veteran refers to the DD-214 as anything other than that..You know nothing about me or the military. Then why hasn't one veteran yet defended you? Easy answer you are a lying dumb ass that wouldn't know a DD-214 if you saw one. And I belong to numerous Veterans organization. Take your beating like a man or at least pretend to be one. PSYCHO.
wrong,
'214' is commonly used within my circle of friends....

you don't know your audience...another sign that you were never a commissioned officer...
No Surprize

Largo, FL

#1197751 Sep 5, 2014
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you serious Karma just reminded you of how stupid and wrong you are , one can tell that you are getting desperate and totally wrong...You really thought you were on to something especially when the other clueless nut case joined up...Two stupids don't quite make a genius. Dumbo.
Where's a Vet like Realtime, quiet about your stupid ghost... You never served!!
Zeituni O Soetoro

New York, NY

#1197753 Sep 5, 2014
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>So.... you're claiming muslims loved anything bushie boy and Bush sr?
wow.....
and now we're claiming boy president loves everything muslim.
No Surprize

Largo, FL

#1197754 Sep 5, 2014
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
No veteran refers to the DD-214 as anything other than that..You know nothing about me or the military. Then why hasn't one veteran yet defended you? Easy answer you are a lying dumb ass that wouldn't know a DD-214 if you saw one. And I belong to numerous Veterans organization. Take your beating like a man or at least pretend to be one. PSYCHO.
ghost, playing bagger with my dck stuck in his head... Not an Officer ghost...

“Peace on Earth”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#1197755 Sep 5, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already seen the videos and heard the statements. You just won't see or hear it on the propagandists' networks.
Dig a little deeper. I know you can do it.
If are going to take Jonathan Turley's comments as gospel, then you must agree with his following statements: Otherwise, I must assume you are a hypocrite.

“Bin Laden‘s twisted notion of success was not the bringing down of two buildings in New York or the partial destruction of the Pentagon. It was how the response to those attacks by the United States resulted in our abandonment of core principles and values in the “war on terror.”

"The framers, I think, would have been astonished by the absolute passivity, if not the collusion of the Democrats in protecting President Bush from impeachment. I mean, they created a system that was essentially idiot-proof, and God knows we've put that to the test in the past few years, but I don't think they anticipated that so many members of the opposition would stand quietly in the face of clear presidential crimes."

"An impeachment hearing needs to be focused and it needs to deal with things directly and frankly, as whether George W. Bush committed crimes. And there is considerable evidence to say that the answer is yes."

"The greatest irony of the Bush Administration is that his legacy will be to show the dangers of walking away from those rights that define us. We're very much alone today. He can't go to Canada without people protesting, Miss America can't even go to Mexico without being booed. We're viewed as a rogue nation and it is a dangerous world to live in when you're alone."

"George W. Bush has shown the dangers of the assertion of absolute power. He has asserted the right to take an American citizen, declare them unilaterally an enemy combatant and deny them all rights. The courts have said otherwise and now Congress will say otherwise."

"Now, both sides, both Democrats and Republicans, have avoided this sort of pig in the parlor. They don’t want to recognize that President Bush may have ordered criminal offenses, but they now may be on the road to do that, because the way Congress can get around the executive privilege in court is to say we are investigating a potential crime. And if they do it here, that crime was ordered by no one other than the George Bush."
TSM

El Paso, TX

#1197756 Sep 5, 2014
Every time I see a picture of Hillary I understand why Bill cheated!! She’s so Ugly just to get the Dog to play with Her you need to tie a Bone around her Neck…Now that’s Ugly !! Maybe 2016 not Happening!!
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1197757 Sep 5, 2014
TSM wrote:
Every time I see a picture of Hillary I understand why Bill cheated!! She’s so Ugly just to get the Dog to play with Her you need to tie a Bone around her Neck…Now that’s Ugly !! Maybe 2016 not Happening!!
Now you know what your wife has to go through with you.
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1197758 Sep 5, 2014
No Surprize wrote:
<quoted text>
ghost, playing bagger with my dck stuck in his head... Not an Officer ghost...
You don't have a dic, pusseeccee lips.

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) 15 min June VanDerMark 320,232
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 4 hr Trojan 34,839
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Tue Poor performance 11,802
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