Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1745317 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: Mar 14

Location hidden

#1092847 Mar 7, 2014
In_Cold_Blood wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't (and doesn't) need to directly order anyone to do whatever was in their power to thwart Tea Party progress. That is a given.
He truly believes the IRS should be used to defeat his enemies and does not see the act as corrupt. Therefore, not a smidgen.
He summed up his understanding of leadership early on when he dismissed Republicans and said, "I won."

It's one thing for a president to take an unpopular stand when he had a Congress who supported him (before they become weasels) and a president who thinks he is the last and final word on every decision despite having a Congress of whom he sees as "enemies" on the opposite side of the aisle.
forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1092848 Mar 7, 2014
M Stein wrote:
Lots of Roosting Chickens for Obammy, The Failure-in-Chief
Since Jeremiah Wright has been the president's pastor for 20 years, Barack Obama should understand the concept of chickens coming home to roost. The chickens took up roosting in the Crimea in the past week. The Russian invasion is the logical outcome of an American foreign policy rooted in unseriousness.
Only three weeks ago our unserious secretary of state called "climate change" a threat to national security. This came less than two years after the then Chairman of the Joint chiefs of staff did the same and suggested we could repurpose our military for a "sustainable future."
This past week, after pledging to cut the American military to pre-World War II levels, our unserious secretary of defense claimed effects from climate change are "threat multipliers." Integrating openly gay soldiers and placing women in frontline combat positions are greater priorities for the Obama Administration than winning wars.
While Obama and his unserious advisors in a western world, grown too unserious about reality, focus on unserious topics, other nations of the world continue to jockey for national interest and Kremlin tanks continue pouring into Ukraine.
Gutting the military then trying ro act tough is not a winning policy
oppen_high_mer

Norman, OK

#1092849 Mar 7, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>what is your 'solution'?
what makes you even think there IS a solution?
you know you cannot even grasp the concepts involved..everyone knows you can't...
Nuclear weapons...
i vote for nuclear winter...
dem

United States

#1092850 Mar 7, 2014
M Stein wrote:
written by Mitt Romney in 2010--before Obama Obozo the Clown made EVEN MORE SERIOUS MISTAKES:

...Hence, to preserve the treaty's restrictions on Russia, America must effectively get Russia's permission for any missile defense expansion.

Moscow's vehemence over our modest plans in Eastern Europe demonstrate that such permission would be extremely unlikely.

The treaty empowers a Bilateral Consultative Commission with broad latitude to amend the treaty with specific reference to missile defense.

New START does something the American public would never countenance and the Senate should never permit: It jeopardizes our missile defense system.

THE TREATY ALSO GIVES FAR MORE TO THE RUSSIANS THAN TO THE UNITED STATES.

As drafted, it lets Russia escape the limit on its number of strategic nuclear warheads. Loopholes and lapses -- presumably carefully crafted by Moscow -- provide a path to entirely avoid the advertised warhead-reduction targets. For example, rail-based ICBMs and launchers are not mentioned. Similarly, multiple nuclear warheads that are mounted on bombers are effectively not counted. Unlike past treaty restrictions, ICBMs are not prohibited from bombers. This means that Russia is free to mount a nearly unlimited number of ICBMs on bombers -- including MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) or multiple warheads -- without tripping the treaty's limits. These omissions would be consistent with Russia's plans for a new heavy bomber and reports of growing interest in rail-mobile ICBMs.

Under New START, the United States must drastically reduce our number of launchers but Russia will not -- it already has fewer launchers than the treaty limits.

Put another way: WE GIVE, RUSSIA GETS.

And more troubling, the treaty fails to apply the MIRV limits that were part of the prior START treaty. Again, it may not be coincidental that Russia is developing a new heavy-load -- meaning MIRV-capable -- ICBM.

NEW-START GIVES RUSSIA A MASSIVE NUCLEAR WEAPON ADVANTAGE OVER THE UNITED STATES.

The treaty ignores tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia outnumbers us by as much as 10 to 1.

Obama heralds a reduction in strategic weapons from approximately 2,200 to 1,550 but fails to mention that Russia will retain more than 10,000 nuclear warheads that are categorized as tactical because they are mounted on missiles that cannot reach the United States. But surely they can reach our allies, nations that depend on us for a nuclear umbrella. And who can know how those tactical nuclear warheads might be reconfigured?

Astonishingly, while excusing tactical nukes from the treaty, the OBAMA administration BOWS TO RUSSIA's insistence that conventional weapons mounted on ICBMs are counted under the treaty's warhead and launcher limits.

By all indications, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN BADLY OUT-NEGOTIATED.

Perhaps the president's eagerness for global disarmament led his team to accede to Russia's demands, or perhaps it led to a document that was less than carefully drafted.

Whatever the reason for the treaty's failings, it must not be ratified: The security of the United States is at stake.

The only responsible course is for the Senate to demand and scrutinize the full diplomatic record underlying the treaty. Then it must insist that any linkage between the treaty and our missile defense system be eliminated. In a world where nuclear weapons are proliferating, America's missile defense shield must not be compromised. As currently drafted, New START is a non-starter.
Pack up your sh it and beat it.
1 post removed
dem

United States

#1092852 Mar 7, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>He summed up his understanding of leadership early on when he dismissed Republicans and said, "I won."

It's one thing for a president to take an unpopular stand when he had a Congress who supported him (before they become weasels) and a president who thinks he is the last and final word on every decision despite having a Congress of whom he sees as "enemies" on the opposite side of the aisle.
Obama is too rough
Obama is too soft.
Make up your tiny mind.
dem

United States

#1092853 Mar 7, 2014
fetch almighty wrote:
O'bama has sent his idiots to the bed of the Special Ops Soldier in Germany, to wake him from the induced coma after surgery, to ask why all the Moslems were shot. This after the 'security forces' Afghan MOSLEMS shot and killed the other three Special OPs soldiers in the back. How did we get such a stupid President?
Get lost you fkn sub human mongrel.

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#1092854 Mar 7, 2014
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
The Supreme Court hasn't even ruled on the case dimwit. Once again, there's nothing in the Constitution or the First Amendment that allows employers to force their religious beliefs on their employees.
Frankly, it's much more dimwitted to think the Supreme Court would overrule a law that already exists - which protects business owners from consumers forcing them to provide services that go against their personal and religious convictions.

You're thinking of Russia's Parliament. We still live in the USA - if communism in the guise of progressive liberalism hasn't already won.
wemmon

Pittsburgh, PA

#1092855 Mar 7, 2014

Face the Truth hes a loser and we all know it..
Edward Deon

Madison, WI

#1092856 Mar 7, 2014
leosnana wrote:
<quoted text>I do, and I will as long as I live. Getting us into Iraq on trumped up charges and wrecking the economy are just icing on the cake. I use to split my ticket all the time; never again.
"Split your ticket???" ( I don't know why but that is making me erect again???)
1 post removed
el cid 777

Scranton, PA

#1092858 Mar 7, 2014
Hi! I am back again on another Friday! I do not know what to write,
again! I would like you to put this in the top browser line..."space
aliens" .....click enter and enjoy! Love, el cid 777
Edward Deon

Madison, WI

#1092859 Mar 7, 2014
The "icing on the cake" thingy just put me over the edge. What a mess...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1092860 Mar 7, 2014
M Stein wrote:
<quoted text>How's that removal of those chemical weapons in Syria going? And you are bragging about Obama and the Start treaty with Russia?
Neville Chamberlain would be proud of you too. Modeling The One you're the winner of the category for Best Downward Dog Pose on Topix. Next you'll be healing oceans.
U.S. Responsibility and Foreign Events

It is even more remarkable how quick so many hawks are to blame the U.S. for undesirable events abroad when they are usually the last to acknowledge U.S. responsibility for any of its own actions in the world. As long as the U.S. is behaving aggressively, intrusively, and showing “leadership,” the likes of McCain take for granted that it is all for the best no matter how destructive that behavior may be. Their view of what the U.S. role in the world should and must be requires them to treat virtually every foreign crisis or conflict as a “failure” of American oversight and direction, or at the very least as an opportunity to exercise “leadership,” because they assume that the U.S. can and must influence foreign events in a fairly decisive fashion for the better. If something unfortunate happens, it happened because the U.S.“failed” to prevent or ameliorate it, and that “failure” can be explained only by invoking negligence or “retreat.” According to this warped reasoning, the U.S. can’t be blamed for what it does, but it must always be blamed for doing too little.

As long as it is taken for granted that a hyper-active and hegemonic U.S. is absolutely necessary for maintaining order in the world, any violence or upheaval has to be blamed at least in part on the hegemon that didn’t somehow put a stop to it. Because hegemonists have a grossly exaggerated view of how involved in the world the U.S. is supposed to be, they are bound to treat anything that goes wrong as proof that the U.S. is not involved enough. Then again, blaming U.S.“passivity” can sometimes be a way to distract attention from the things that the U.S. has done wrong in a given region, and those are usually the things that hawks have supported in the past. While this kind of criticism superficially blames the U.S., it is usually just an occasion to demand that the U.S. behave much more aggressively than it already had been and to treat increased hawkishness as a panacea. That is, it becomes an excuse to justify all manner of unwise and provocative U.S. behavior. After all, if one assumes that “passivity” is what made the event possible, the response should be “action,” which hawks conveniently define as whatever they want to do.

The U.S. government is responsible for its rhetoric and actions and for the effects of both, but it can’t be seriously held responsible for the outcomes of most internal disputes and foreign conflicts, especially those in which it had little or nothing at stake. The U.S. becomes responsible for events overseas to the extent that it involves itself directly or indirectly in them, and so it should try to act as carefully and responsibly in its dealings abroad as it possibly can. One part of being careful and responsible in how the U.S. acts overseas is to be very reluctant to interfere, take sides, or otherwise involve itself in foreign disputes and conflicts, and to recognize that the U.S. can often do the most good–or at least the least harm–by remaining impartial and neutral most of the time.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/lariso...
1 post removed
Edward Deon

Madison, WI

#1092862 Mar 7, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankly, it's much more dimwitted to think the Supreme Court would overrule a law that already exists - which protects business owners from consumers forcing them to provide services that go against their personal and religious convictions.
You're thinking of Russia's Parliament. We still live in the USA - if communism in the guise of progressive liberalism hasn't already won.
I'll get back to you in a minute, first I have to rub my girls' feet...

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#1092863 Mar 7, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>were they constitutional lawyers like Obama?
in our nation, religious laws do not trump our constitution. simple fact.
Oh, for heaven's sake...I just hope there aren't too many like you out there...

Our Constitution PROTECTS religious freedom - including the right to exercise that freedom when refusing services which go against one's religious beliefs.

Seriously...this is why the loyalists are irreversibly brainwashed and would follow Obama over a cliff and into the sea led by the Pied Piper of the liberal media.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1092864 Mar 7, 2014
Ignore Hard-liners on Russia and Ukraine

While the desire to punish Russia for its actions may be understandable, is there any reason to expect that this will change its behavior for the better? I called Russia’s incursion as “gross overreaction,” and so it was, but it would be very unwise if Western governments imitated that behavior by overreacting in their own response. If the goal is simply to inflict damage on Russia to teach it a lesson and to show “the world that America is not going anywhere”(whatever that is supposed to mean), it is more than likely to backfire and produce more of the same kind of behavior that the U.S. and EU reject. Hard-liners in all countries adhere to some version of the cult of “resolve” that informs so many wrongheaded hawkish arguments here, so we can be reasonably sure that “punishing” Russia will convince Moscow to dig in its heels and take more reckless actions of its own so that it is not perceived as “weak.”

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

Madison, WI

#1092865 Mar 7, 2014
Oh, my goodness! He's back again.... I wonder why he never rubs my feet? Is it the bunions?
1 post removed
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1092867 Mar 7, 2014
Whitewashing the Failure of Bush’s Russia Policy

It is not possible to understand Russian behavior over the last ten years without acknowledging the extent to which U.S.-Russian relations were wrecked by several Western policies, chief among them being Bush’s push for missile defense in eastern Europe and NATO expansion into the former USSR. If the Bush administration suffered from any illusions, it was that the U.S. could consistently goad and provoke Russia in its own region without consequences. By the end of Bush’s second term, that illusion was dispelled, and it was in order to repair the substantial damage that had been done in the previous five or six years that the U.S. successfully sought to find common interests with Russia.

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

Madison, WI

#1092868 Mar 7, 2014
oppen_high_mer wrote:
<quoted text>
Nuclear weapons...
i vote for nuclear winter...
You got it, Tex... I've always said Ok City needs to be ground zero... It's weirdly comforting to me, the image of Oklahoma being erased... You people START to scream, but are cut off short... I apologize but I just love it...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1092869 Mar 7, 2014
Absurd Arguments About “Credibility” and the “Reset”

Hawks recite the mantra “weakness is provocative” with religious devotion, but over the last twenty years we know that Moscow has viewed Western shows of “strength” with great alarm. Hawks always assume that other governments act as they do because U.S.“weakness” permits or invites them to do so, but this is impossible to entangle from their general assumption that specific U.S. policies need to be more aggressive across the board. The possibility that other states perceive the U.S. as still being far too meddlesome and intrusive doesn’t occur to them because they are preoccupied with complaining about so-called “retreat.” Despite the fact that Russian action in Ukraine came in direct response to an “advance” by “pro-Western” forces, hawks discount that and look back to the Syrian episode because they think this validates the “retreat” argument. In so doing, they ignore what really seems to be motivating the Kremlin’s decision-making and substitute their own explanation.

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

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#1092870 Mar 7, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>were they constitutional lawyers like Obama?
in our nation, religious laws do not trump our constitution. simple fact.
Obama, apparently, has his own version of the Constitution. He thinks the original should be rewritten according to him and his own vision. Don't you remember?

He probably taught his own version at Harvard as well.

And then went on to become another corrupt Chicago politician.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Get on the Right Side': Shooting Survivors Dec... 3 min southern at heart 1,398
News CNN: Trump Is Considering Axing Deputy AG Rosen... 24 min spud 286
News Trump wants military to secure border with Mexico 35 min spud 466
News Steyer's talk of impeaching Trump not appealing... 55 min spud 16
News Trump fumes at Mueller probe; some Republicans ... 1 hr BridgeDweller 67
News Police shootings of unarmed black people have n... 1 hr 870King 87
News Ted Nugent says Parkland survivors are 'mushy b... 2 hr 870King 597
News Comey speculates Russians may have damaging inf... 3 hr gnnn 392
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 6 hr Quivering Lip Lib... 71,617