Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1580758 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.

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1024234 Nov 15, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats the whole IDEA with universal health coverage, it's dragging all those healthy 20 somethings into coverage while the unhealthy 60+'s drag on the costs.
You sound like Obama always contradicting himself.

Why would healthy 20 somethings want to be dragged into a system paying more for the unhealthy 60 somethings in the first place?

That's the whole idea behind Obamacare too.

Doesn't lowering the costs of health care and making it more affordable for everyone by starting over and leaving in the few good things in Obamacare sound like a much better solution than Obama's one-year "fix" that fixes nothing?

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1024235 Nov 15, 2013
flack wrote:
Where did all the libtards go?
They're off screaming into their pillows somewhere.

Morning, flack.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1024236 Nov 15, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
The Defense of Marriage Act, the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday by a 5-4 vote.
"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supr...
doesn't matter when. the Court decision proved that Holder's actions were correct.
now let's talk about who read what.
No, dumbass.
Here's the ruling:

"Because we find that petitioners do not have standing, we have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the Ninth Circuit," Roberts wrote.

You have a problem sticking to the facts, typical of Democrats.

The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, does not directly overturn the same-sex marriage ban California voters approved in 2008. Instead, Roberts, writing for an unusual coalition of justices, sent the question back to a federal district court in California, which had barred state officials from enforcing the law, known as Proposition 8.

This means the federal government has no authority on the matter. What this means is, the DOMA law was not relevant to the case and is still the law of the land, dumbass.

Now, why would the RINOs agree to impeach Eric Holder on the issue of a law with a political bias and only radical social engineers are passionate about, and ignore Eric Holder committing a felony when he lied to Congress?

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1024237 Nov 15, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
Here is another case where the RINOs are sabotaging the Republican Party. In the impeachment of Eric Holder, instead of impeaching him for lying to Congress, a felony that gets you sent to prison, the RINOs agree to go along with impeachment under the conditions that Eric Holder not be impeached for a felony, but for non enforcement of a law that has a political bias and most people are not concerned about.
RINOs are Democrats engaged in sabotage. The Republicans need to get rid of them.
I personally like the younger and braver conservatives myself.

But Christie could create a problem in my opinion if he runs against these younger and braver conservatives on the republican ticket.

He can't seem to figure out which side of the fence he's on and has a big mouth that creates more problems than helps the party.

He gives the impression he also thinks it's all about him. We don't need another one of those.

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1024238 Nov 15, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
That 44% number was before everyone figured out Obama is a pathological liar and was lying about what the cost of the insurance would be through the exchanges. After everyone saw the proof that Obama is a liar and doesn't have a clue about what is written on the teleprompter he reads from, that 44% number was cut in half.
Given that the Democrats can rely on 35 percent of the population to pretend to believe their lies regardless of anything else, that 22 percent number is incredibly horrible news for them.
You're right. Opinions are changing on a daily basis. One week is a long time politically speaking nowadays.

It will be interesting to see the polls when they come out after that sad and rather pathetic press conference yesterday.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#1024239 Nov 15, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
The Defense of Marriage Act, the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday by a 5-4 vote.
"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supr...
doesn't matter when. the Court decision proved that Holder's actions were correct.
now let's talk about who read what.
Another example of how feckless and ill-informed the Clinton's are. Democrats seem to forget who signed the bill into law.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1024240 Nov 15, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
States With The Fewest College Degree Holders
1. Arkansas
2. West Virginia
3. Nevada
4. New Mexico
5. Oklahoma
6. Alaska
7. Arizona
8. Texas
9. Tennessee
10. Mississippi
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/11/stat...
it would be nice if you could on occasion cite your right wing nonsense.
... idiots.
Fewest college degree holders, versus per capita fewest college degree holders. You either don't know what you're talking about, or you're intentionally ignoring some facts somewhere.
Who knows. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is you are doing your usual uncoordinated dance and dodging the issue.
Here's the post again for your convenient reference if you feel like answering the post:

The so-called "progressives" are responsible for the education system we have today, the most expensive in the world that generates the most ignorant workforce in the industrialized world. This proves money isn't the problem. The so-called "progressives" are the problem.
So, since it's obvious money isn't the problem, why in hell do you even mention such ludicrous notions as "cutting education"?
Paved roads... I seem to recall the "Porkulus" bull... sorry, bill... that had all those "shovel-ready" jobs waiting to be done, and after a mountain of money was given to a bunch of thieves, there wasn't any infrastructure work done. So, where did that money go, and what idiot do you expect to give you more money?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1024242 Nov 15, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
I personally like the younger and braver conservatives myself.
But Christie could create a problem in my opinion if he runs against these younger and braver conservatives on the republican ticket.
He can't seem to figure out which side of the fence he's on and has a big mouth that creates more problems than helps the party.
He gives the impression he also thinks it's all about him. We don't need another one of those.
Yes, he could create a problem. He is obviously a saboteur. He sabotaged the Republicans in exchange for the Democrats pulling the candidate they had slated to run against him and replaced him with a sure loser. The RINOs know he'll generate a very poor turnout and almost any Democrat will win.
That is why the media is portraying him as being significant in Republican politics. He's already proved he'll sabotage the Republican ticket. What idiot thinks he won't do that again?
Laney F

Jamaica, NY

#1024243 Nov 15, 2013
Priorities, priorities. Progressives love promiscuity.

Priorities.

On Tuesday, they launched Phase Two of their Obamacare bread and circuses.

Aimed at young women, the ads show party gals with shot glasses lined up on a ski; “Hey, Girl” gags involving a cutout of actor Ryan Gosling; and the Sandra Fluke–inspired promo featuring birth-control-wielding “Susie” and her “hot to trot” date, Nate.

The caption reads:

Let’s Get Physical. OMG, he’s hot! Let’s hope he’s as easy to get as this birth control. My health insurance covers the pill, which means all I have to worry about is getting him between the covers. I got insurance. Now you can, too.

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1024244 Nov 15, 2013
USAsince1680 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I'm a heck of a lot smarter than you.
Says Curly Joe to Albert Einstein...

=)
Rahm Jizzbucket Emanuel

Oswego, IL

#1024245 Nov 15, 2013
I thank God everyday that I am not a lying socialist minority chunk of fecal matter!
Laney F

Jamaica, NY

#1024246 Nov 15, 2013
ObammyCare's Bro-surance and Ho-surance

It’s bad enough that these idiocracy-targeted ads reduce young people to perpetually partying boozers and traffic-bait boobs.

But what’s truly toxic is the ad campaign’s cynical feint to draw attention away from Obamacare’s undeniable harm to RESPONSIBLE young people.

Brosurance and Hosurance are trifling distractions from the federal law’s Nosurance consequences.

Insurers started dropping child-only plans in Colorado, California, Ohio, and Missouri in 2010 thanks to Obamacare-induced premium increases.

Colleges across the country have canceled low-cost plans for students because of Obamacare rules.

Thanks to the Obamacare mandate, young, healthy Americans face higher insurance premiums, decreased work hours, and perverse incentives to enroll in Medicaid instead of remaining independent and off the dole.

Meanwhile, back in Colorado, the state Division of Insurance reports that 250,000 people here have lost their insurance policies in the past few months.

And while the “bros and hos” circus masters urge young people to sign up “easily” on the state exchange, the overseers of the $200 million program are singing a different tune. Last week, IT expert and Colorado health-insurance-exchange board member Nathan Wilkes blasted the process as “painful,”“odious,” and “embarrassing.”

That’s an apt description of the ruinous policies, clownish implementation, and moronic marketing of all aspects of Obamacare.

Sober up, young America. The “Affordable Care Act” is the progressives’ wealth-redistribution party from hell — and you’re paying for it.

Michele Malkin
(now let's sick back because the Obots will criticize the author while ignoring the above content)

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1024247 Nov 15, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
ok, Kaiser.
This "marriage penalty," as some conservative critics are calling it, is hardly unique to federal health reform.
"Any [federal benefit] structured based on poverty will have that effect," said Gary Claxton, a vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/07/news/economy/...
but it's Heritage who forgets to mention that fact.
Except married couples earning one dollar more than the allotted amount - just over $63,000 - will get whammied with extremely high premiums. If they jointly earned just one dollar less, they'd be eligible for the subsidies.

How is that fair again? And how is that going to keep married couples together?

Even empty nesters will get whammied just for staying together.

What's up with that, sonic? Seriously.

“Often imitated”

Since: Jul 07

never duplicated

#1024248 Nov 15, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
every poll they cite has higher numbers than the Tea Party polls.
the part they always leave out that i always have to bring up.
funny how that works.
so contrary to what you loony left wingers keep saying, the tea party IS still relevant.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1024249 Nov 15, 2013
The Supreme Court seems to be schizophrenic... again. Conflicting rulings, one stating they have no jurisdiction, the other stating the have jurisdiction, on the same matter.

It is getting to the point where nobody has confidence in the Supreme Court. They just cheer when a ruling goes in their political direction, and jeer when it doesn't, and pay no attention to what is actually written in the Constitution.

Here's what the Constitution says about it: NOTHING.

Therefore, it is a state's issue. If anyone has any doubts about this, read the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1024250 Nov 15, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
They're off screaming into their pillows somewhere.
Morning, flack.
Morning Carol.

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1024251 Nov 15, 2013
Here's another little fly in the ointment some liberals probably haven't considered.

Obama claims income must be "verified" to be eligible for the subsidies but navigators have been caught undercover telling people to lie about income not reported to the IRS.

And the only way the IRS will know if someone is lying about their income is after tax time every year. They can't do anything to get that money under the law and they can't possibly go after that many people anyway.

It's the "gullibility factor" on the part of liberals and liberalism - thinking everyone is just too honest to lie or abuse the system.

The line between compassion and gullibility is all over the place in a liberal's mind.

Why is beyond me.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1024252 Nov 15, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
I personally like the younger and braver conservatives myself.
But Christie could create a problem in my opinion if he runs against these younger and braver conservatives on the republican ticket.
He can't seem to figure out which side of the fence he's on and has a big mouth that creates more problems than helps the party.
He gives the impression he also thinks it's all about him. We don't need another one of those.
He may be toast.

Here’s a closer look at the issues that caught the Romney team’s attention:
1. A Justice Department IG’s report: In 2010, a DoJ inspector general report criticized Christie’s free-spending habits in the U.S. attorney’s office, a revelation that was made public that year. Halperin and Heilemann write that the report “criticized him for being ‘the U.S. attorney who most often exceeded the government [travel expense] rate without adequate justification’ and for offering ‘insufficient, inaccurate, or no justification’ for stays at swank hotels.” The book says the report also “raised questions for vetters about Christie’s relationship with a top female deputy who accompanied him on many of the trips.”
2. A defamation lawsuit: Romney’s team also looked at a defamation lawsuit Christie faced, write Halperin and Heilemann. Here’s how the Newark Star-Ledger described the incident:”In 1994, his opponents in the Republican Morris County freeholder primary sued him for claiming they were under investigation by the county prosecutor. The case was settled, and Christie issued a formal apology.” The Romney vetters asked Christie’s team to provide the terms of settlement, but did not get that information by the time they issued a report on him for Romney to review.
3. Christie’s lobbying work: The Romney campaign wanted more information than they got on Christie’s lobbying clients, according to the book. Also, Christie once lobbied for the Securities Industry Association when Bernie Madoff — who was sentenced in 2009 for masterminding a historic financial fraud — was a senior official there.
4. Christie’s brother: In 2008, Todd Christie agreed to settle Securities and Exchange Commission civil charges. The book says he “acknowledged making ‘hundreds of trades in which customers had been systematically overcharged.’” Halperin and Heilemann write that his oversight of a family foundation also caught the attention of the Romney vetters. The written report the Romney vetters finalized for the presidential candidate to review said that the campaign asked Christie whether his brother incurred any penalty as a result of action taken by the SEC/NYSE, but they had not received that information.
5. Steering contracts to donors/allies:“There was Christie’s decision to steer hefty government contracts to donors and political allies such as former attorney general John Ashcroft, which sparked a congressional hearing,” Halperin and Heilemann write. Separately, the New York Times took a close look recently at an ally of Christie’s who had charges dismissed. The paper found no evidence the dismissal came at Christie’s order. But if he runs for president, Christie could find that opposition research teams will be digging into the broader subject of possible political favors pertaining to his record.
Sean Sullivan
Sean Sullivan covers national politics for “The Fix.” Prior to joining the Washington Post in the summer of 2012, Sean was the editor of Hotline On Call, National Journal Hotline’s politics blog. He has also worked for NHK Japan Public Broadcasting and ABC News. Sean is a graduate of Hamilton College, where he received a degree in Philosophy. He lives in Washington, D.C. Follow Sean on Twitter.
TSM

United States

#1024253 Nov 15, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
PDupont seems to have forgotten slavery was a "legal" institution and women being treated as second-class citizens and denied the right to vote was also "legal" at one time.
Many amendments no longer make something "legal". It's why we have amendments - to change wrongs that were once considered right based on a mutual consensus of conscience and society changing for the betterment of the nation.
Spot On!!
Buroc Millhouse Obama

Hamden, CT

#1024254 Nov 15, 2013
Where'd the French KKKoward PDufus go?

Must be another thread where he can go pick on more women who he feels should not be allowed to have an opinion.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 3 min Trumpler 25,559
News Why Hire More Border Patrol When Illegal Immigr... 7 min spytheweb 41
News Reactions to Trump's statement on violence in V... 7 min EMMETT TILL 317
News US court rules Arkansas can block Planned Paren... 7 min Red Crosse 11
News Tense days for business owners without legal st... 11 min spytheweb 13
A list of websites and apps that have banned, d... 13 min Quirky 3
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 15 min Quirky 286,887
News Dear Trump Voters: The 1950's Aren't Coming Back 22 min Rico from East Lo... 1,260
News The Military Coup Against Donald Trump of 2018,... 1 hr Retribution 71
News Under fire - from GOP - Trump digs in on Confed... 2 hr Retribution 52
More from around the web