Read "George's Bottom" and went blind.

For farks sake, let him get into office first. Shiat.

Oh well, maybe Palin will be able to fix everything in 2016.

"Everybody's going to have to give. Everybody's going to have to have some skin in the game," Obama said.

Is this a 70's movie?

Persepolis: For farks sake, let him get into office first. Shiat.

THIS

Some folks aren't going to even cooperate, let alone give. How do you fix a country when there are retards doing everything they can to prevent it ?

well - since he made those promises our country has developed some serious issues, don't know if you noticed that Stubby

Sniff.
Sniff.

Ewwwww!
This headline smells like talking point!

/wipes off shoe.

You know, in Bizarro world, President-Elect Obama just gave an interview to CBA's George Snuffleupugus where he said that even though the economy is on the edge of tanking...he was going to continue on with every last one of his campaign promises without care for the national debt or deficit spending and he was going to fulfill them all within his first 100 days in office.

On Bizarro Fark, people attacked him mercilessly for this decision.

Bathia_Mapes: THIS

Unless one of his campaign promises was to start his term before his inauguration.

Persepolis: Unless one of his campaign promises was to start his term before his inauguration.

There are two things that are very fascinating about Fark.

1) Apparently, Obama is already the President to be blamed and his term has already been labeled a failure because of any number of things that can't possibly be done yet or just plain shouldn't be said/done yet.

2) The same people that spent 4-8 years, on this very site, talking about how Bush can't possibly be blamed for the problems in this country are already blaming Obama and slobbering all over their keyboards at the thought of Obama being the cause of all their problems.

And, when I say "fascinating"...I actually mean "mindnumbingly stupid"

I swear... if Obama said he would help to create 5 million jobs and only managed to help create 499,999,999 jobs, some asshat would claim he broke his promise.

p the boiler: well - since he made those promises our country has developed some serious issues, don't know if you noticed that Stubby

doesn't matter. If he said he was going to sit at his desk then he has to do exactly that, even if the building subsequently catches on fire. Nothing matters.

bulldg4life: There are two things that are very fascinating about Fark.

There's going to be a third one. You can bookmark this thread and refer to this prediction, it's going to happen.

Once Obama gets into office and starts getting critiqued by republicans (no matter how small or insignificant the complaint) someone is going to refer to one of Bush's massive fark ups, and will be countered with a "but-but-but-Bush"

So now Bush's presidency has been absolved of any wrong doing because Bill Clinton got a blowjob and the democrats used the "but-but-but clinton" snark to counter references to it.

/does that make any sense? I had it worded better in my mind.

Some of you people are a little strange.

Every anti-Obama thread immediately gets a -1 vote and people swarm to these threads like bees flying to the hive.

Calm down already :).

/Voted for B.O.

bulldg4life: The same people that spent 4-8 years, on this very site, talking about how Bush can't possibly be blamed for the problems in this country are already blaming Obama and slobbering all over their keyboards at the thought of Obama being the cause of all their problems.

They're trained to act like victims while trying to take advantage of people. It's their M.O.

PacersJAM3s: Every anti-Obama thread immediately gets a -1 vote

Can you let him take office first please? Please? That's why they're getting -1 votes. They're crap submissions.

/Didn't vote on this thread.

PacersJAM3s: Some of you people are a little strange.

lol..a new fish.

Persepolis: /does that make any sense?

It's already happening. There have been countless times that people have said something about Obama...others have laughed at the ridiculousness...and then the response was "oh, so after 8 years, it's unfair to attack the President again".

That's because appointing too many/not enough liberals to his cabinet or picking Hillary or putting a basketball court in the white house or not talking about an ongoing investigation in to Blagojevich or putting his kids in private school is exactly the same as starting a ridiculous war with no exit strategy under false pretenses or opening a quasi-legal prison on a military base in a foreign country outside the guidelines of the US Constitution and the Geneva convention or gutting the DoJ in a purely partisan witchhunt looking at false allegations of voter registration fraud or handing out no-bid contracts to friends of friends calling in to question the safety of American troops and subsequently spending every last dime the American government could ever hope to use for 20 years.

And, of course, Obama winning 370 electoral votes is the same as Bush's election in 200. It's like Bush's 90% or whatever the f*ck it was in 2001 approval rating didn't exist.

For the last 8 years, poor Bush has been attacked because those silly liberals thought his election was fraudulent, therefore validating the idea of attacking Obama 2 months out from inauguration because Rahm Immanuel is from Chicago too.

(rolls eyes, and makes jerking off motion. Again)

It's also nothing but noise at the end of the day. These little imbeciles have to respond in the only way they know how to the fact their their precious team lost. They don't care about America. Don't care about people dying or being maimed. Don't care about hundreds of billions in debt. Don't care about anything but getting even for their precious tem.

Because at the end of the day most "conservatives" on Fark are either 16 year old douchebags from middle class families who think they accomplished something special with their lives or dumbassed hicks who are angry that they probably will never accomplish anything other than filling the hole in the outhouse with their best work.

Note that that refers to the "conservatives" and not to the actual conservatives like Churchill2004 (as an example) or others who are actually capable of thinking and analyzing situations.

I had "Subby is an idiot, probably due to his mother being a crack whore." Where do I collect?

"And eventually sacrifice from everyone?" I asked.

"Everybody's going to have to give. Everybody's going to have to have some skin in the game," Obama said.



Y'know, I didn't cause these problems. In fact, I consistantly voted against candidates who advocated policy decisions that helped get us into this mess. I pay my bills on time, live within my means, and didn't buy a house I couldn't afford. It's not my fault. None of it.

I did everything right! why am I being punished for it?

And no, I don't blame Obama for this situation. But I'm pretty ticked off that everyone is telling me that because I am fiscally responsible that I have to pay higher taxes so that people who weren't behaving themselves have something to live on.

Weaver95: why am I being punished for it?

Because it is your country, too. It's on the back of the Constitution in fine print. If things are screwed up and we wish to improve things...everybody is going to have to help.

Persepolis: For farks sake, let him get into office first. Shiat.

Came in here to say THIS. Kreist, you asshats. We've had the biggest fark-up in American presidential history in office for 8 years (yes, including Grant, Pierce, AND Nixon), and you want to attack the guy who isn't even in office yet?

Damn. You know, Republicans, you really shouldn't get so personally invested in an election. It makes you unhappy if you happen to lose.

obama made a campaign pledge to not fark subby's mother.

/another broken promise

Weaver95: I did everything right! why am I being punished for it?

because as a practical matter, that's the only way to solve things. anyone that tells you life's fair is lying or trying to sell you something.

He promised me it wouldn't rain today.

bulldg4life: Weaver95: why am I being punished for it?

Because it is your country, too. It's on the back of the Constitution in fine print. If things are screwed up and we wish to improve things...everybody is going to have to help.

My ideas of fiscal conservatism are rejected out of hand. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the ideas of personal responsiblity and fiscal restraint are considered 'weird' or 'radical'. I and those like me are laughed at, ignored and then ultimately robbed by those who tell the electorate that it's perfectly ok to vote themselves to an ever increasing share of my money.

Y'know, there's another document that addresses exactly this sort of situation and what we should do about it. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

Keep it up and that is exactly what might happen.

Occam's Chainsaw: Yeah, that. Love it or hate it, it's our country, and therefore our farkup. Your options are take your lumps, leave, or kill 'em all and start over.

So if someone else farks up, why am *I* the one who has to leave?

burndtdan: Weaver95: I did everything right! why am I being punished for it?

because as a practical matter, that's the only way to solve things. anyone that tells you life's fair is lying or trying to sell you something.

Hrm. Guess it's time for those of us who actually lived up to our end of the Social Contract to stop. After all, if we do what we're supposed to, we end up wiping the asses of those who didn't. If we don't, we end up getting bailed out by the gummint at the expense of those who did.

Benevolent Misanthrope: burndtdan: Weaver95: I did everything right! why am I being punished for it?

because as a practical matter, that's the only way to solve things. anyone that tells you life's fair is lying or trying to sell you something.

Hrm. Guess it's time for those of us who actually lived up to our end of the Social Contract to stop. After all, if we do what we're supposed to, we end up wiping the asses of those who didn't. If we don't, we end up getting bailed out by the gummint at the expense of those who did.

Hey, if those of us who are responsible just stopped paying for the mistakes of others - would it really be that bad? I suppose it would suck to be the looters and moochers, but hey - who said 'life was fair', right?

Weaver95: So if someone else farks up, why am *I* the one who has to leave?

You can't pin this on "someone else". Even paying taxes means you helped pay the salaries of the people who were asleep at the switch.

Actually voting for any of them make us all part of the problem. In effect we failed to do due diligence in selecting competent leadership.

Weaver95: So if someone else farks up, why am *I* the one who has to leave?

You don't have to leave. However, your options are limited.

A) Everybody keeps doing what they are currently doing because they don't want to have to sacrifice their stuff to fix things. We keep things how they are.

B) We force certain people to help more, for whatever reason, to fix things that they screwed up

C) Everybody sacrifices something to fix things because everybody wants things fixed.

You seem to want things fixed but you don't want to give up your shiat. So, why don't you go ahead and explain how you get to keep things how you want AND things get fixed, because from my point of view...everybody's going to have to buck up and deal with it for some indeterminate period of time while we fix things.

bulldg4life: You seem to want things fixed but you don't want to give up your shiat. So, why don't you go ahead and explain how you get to keep things how you want AND things get fixed, because from my point of view...everybody's going to have to buck up and deal with it for some indeterminate period of time while we fix things.

From MY perspective, the fix is extremely easy - just cut about 50% of our spending. Yeah - it really is that easy. Social Security goes, the war on drugs goes, the war on terror goes. Medicaid goes. Medicare goes. All of it. No exceptions. Gone.

There. the budget is balanced.

Weaver95: Benevolent Misanthrope: burndtdan: Weaver95: I did everything right! why am I being punished for it?

because as a practical matter, that's the only way to solve things. anyone that tells you life's fair is lying or trying to sell you something.

Hrm. Guess it's time for those of us who actually lived up to our end of the Social Contract to stop. After all, if we do what we're supposed to, we end up wiping the asses of those who didn't. If we don't, we end up getting bailed out by the gummint at the expense of those who did.

Hey, if those of us who are responsible just stopped paying for the mistakes of others - would it really be that bad? I suppose it would suck to be the looters and moochers, but hey - who said 'life was fair', right?

Works for me. I do my job and solve my own problems. I see no reason to pay for the mistakes of others, as long as I don't expect others to pay for mine.

Yes - it's my country. And if someone is on hard times through no fault of their own, or there's a disaster, I have no problem with helping them. But when some asshat plays the system to buy crap and a house they can't afford, why should my taxes go to ease the consequences of their actions?

Weaver95: From MY perspective, the fix is extremely easy - just cut about 50% of our spending. Yeah - it really is that easy. Social Security goes, the war on drugs goes, the war on terror goes. Medicaid goes. Medicare goes. All of it. No exceptions. Gone.

There. the budget is balanced.

Well, when you go in to it with the mindset that you don't care about the rest of your countrymen as long as there are no red numbers...yeah, I guess it does make sense.

But, seeing as how that is a ridiculously simplistic and borderline stupid answer, I'll go ahead and leave you to your own distasteful view of the government.

JohnnyC: I swear... if Obama said he would help to create 5 million jobs and only managed to help create 499,999,999 jobs, some asshat would claim he broke his promise.

Actually, I'd wonder where the extra 100 something million people came from that he gave jobs to.

Mayor Bee: Actually, I'd wonder where the extra 100 something million people came from that he gave jobs to.

Any woman between the ages of 18 and 50 that watch the inauguration will be inseminated from the Messiah.

Weaver95: So if someone else farks up, why am *I* the one who has to leave?

Because you want to opt out. Your options are participate or don't, but if you chose don't, you don't get to hang out here.

Stop thinking in terms of I. In a society, any given I doesn't matter one whit. It's We The People, not I The Snowflake.

Occam's Chainsaw: Weaver95: So if someone else farks up, why am *I* the one who has to leave?

Because you want to opt out. Your options are participate or don't, but if you chose don't, you don't get to hang out here.

Stop thinking in terms of I. In a society, any given I doesn't matter one whit. It's We The People, not I The Snowflake.

Tell that to the people who got loans they couldn't afford and expect a government bailout.

Benevolent Misanthrope: Tell that to the people who got loans they couldn't afford and expect a government bailout.

I had no idea there were people that took loans they couldn't afford with the expectation that the government was going to bail them out.

Now, there are people that have loans they can't afford that feel they deserve help given the government is already helping the companies that handed out those loans...but that's a slightly different story.

I know of no-one that signed up for an ARM or whatever with the expectation that if they screwed up...the government would give them a bailout.

Benevolent Misanthrope: Tell that to the people who got loans they couldn't afford and expect a government bailout.

Have, do, and will. Although that line of reasoning is somewhat disingenuous when we're already bailing out some people, but not others. Were we to want to make that statement without being utter hypocrites, we'd have to start by telling the loan originators and the junk securities holders no.

Persepolis: There's going to be a third one. You can bookmark this thread and refer to this prediction, it's going to happen.

Here is another one, Obama will try to embrace Keynesian Economics. (Like Bush II, Ford, FDR, etc did.)Once again, Keynesianisim will do the one thing it's good at, failing miserably at its intended goals.

Weaver95: Social Security goes

I have been agreeing with you for a while, but this is a big no no.

That's 100% of my 80-year old father's income. The economy's in the tank, so Privatization will not be an option. Imagine what would happen if it were already privatized? Utter collapse of millions of elderly's ability to support themselves, millions homeless, massive burden on whatever paltry "charities" can scrounge up (you see how effective they are with the homeless). You KNOW that the government would sink billions into THAT first. It just adds to the bailout bill.

What do you suggest we do with him? Nursing home means Medicaid, another government program. And they wouldn't be able to handle the massive number of people who would otherwise be independent suddenly want to live in nursing homes. Do you think he should live in our 1-bedroom apartment? Now that'll be a divorce pending and I also lose my apartment since I need my wife's income to really meet the bills. So I just add to the mortgage crisis.

After this crisis, privatizing social security is about the dumbest idea anyone can hold on to.

Sorry. This is a hot button for me since I have been un-farking my Dad's finances these last few months.

JohnnyC: I swear... if Obama said he would help to create 5 million jobs and only managed to help create 499,999,999 jobs, some asshat would claim he broke his promise.

Numbers are hard.

PC LOAD LETTER: Weaver95: Social Security goes

I have been agreeing with you for a while, but this is a big no no.

That's 100% of my 80-year old father's income. The economy's in the tank, so Privatization will not be an option. Imagine what would happen if it were already privatized? Utter collapse of millions of elderly's ability to support themselves, millions homeless, massive burden on whatever paltry "charities" can scrounge up (you see how effective they are with the homeless). You KNOW that the government would sink billions into THAT first. It just adds to the bailout bill.

What do you suggest we do with him? Nursing home means Medicaid, another government program. And they wouldn't be able to handle the massive number of people who would otherwise be independent suddenly want to live in nursing homes. Do you think he should live in our 1-bedroom apartment? Now that'll be a divorce pending and I also lose my apartment since I need my wife's income to really meet the bills. So I just add to the mortgage crisis.

After this crisis, privatizing social security is about the dumbest idea anyone can hold on to.

Sorry. This is a hot button for me since I have been un-farking my Dad's finances these last few months.

Again... If someone had put money into a 401k instead of the SS, they would have more returns than SS would be paying out... even after the latest crash. Those who were near retirement *should* have been in safer investments like bonds, and most likely would not have seen a 40% decrease in their retirement savings.

PC LOAD LETTER: After this crisis, privatizing social security is about the dumbest idea anyone can hold on to.

I'm pretty sure there has never been a 10-year period where the market hasn't made money. For the longterm, you could throw your money in the S&P 500 and pretty much guarantee a positive return when you retired.

Yes, you can poitn to a giant downturn and say "hey, if we had privatized 3 years ago...lots of people would be f*cked", but that is a very shortsighted view of the situation.

Social security probably should be privatized. One, it keeps the government from stealing the money to pay for other shiat and it just plain makes sense. There could be a system of phasing the system out over a period of 10-20 years so that massive downturns like this don't screw over a segment of the population.

But, for people that are 10+ years away from retiring, living in the current broken system is just plain silly.

MyRandomName: Again... If someone had put money into a 401k instead of the SS, they would have more returns than SS would be paying out... even after the latest crash. Those who were near retirement *should* have been in safer investments like bonds, and most likely would not have seen a 40% decrease in their retirement savings.

The first rule of human nature: never underestimate the stupidity of humans in groups. Your best case scenario would never come to pass.

bulldg4life: I know of no-one that signed up for an ARM or whatever with the expectation that if they screwed up...the government would give them a bailout.

Dude, you ruined a talking point that felt so good. Bastard.