Um, yeah... where was the attack on the dog?

MuadDib: Um, yeah... where was the attack on the dog?

The "new dog, $2000" part? You know, right at the very beginning?

mediablitz: MuadDib: Um, yeah... where was the attack on the dog?

The "new dog, $2000" part? You know, right at the very beginning?

The "787 billion dollars" part toward the end? You know, paying off cronies and then spending a few trillion more?

DonnyBaker: The "787 billion dollars" part toward the end? You know, paying off cronies and then spending a few trillion more?

Cronies? Citation needed. And don't even pretend that ACORN is getting 787 billion dollars.

It's expensive when grownups have to clean up after the children. It's nice to finally see you care about fiscal responsibility though.

Joe Biden's attack was better.

Action Replay Nick: It's expensive when grownups have to clean up after the children.

You mean like cleaning up after Democrats finished playing around with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

If that was attack on Obama's new dog, it wasn't a very good one. The ad seemed more like a jab at Obama than Bo. I just hope Obama doesn't come out on TV and make a "Checkers" speech.

I don't understand why these ads are being made, as they clearly play to their base. If you are a small market football team, you don't waste most of your ad budget preaching to the choir in the city and county where you play and have fans by default. You branch into other areas of the state or even neighboring states to draw fans to your product.
No one is watching these ads and thinking, "Damn! I've been wrong all of this time!" Like the small market team branches to other locales, this party needs to come up with ideas and media spots that even PRETEND to be reaching out to independents or disgusted former members.

Just kidding...let's spend a bunch of money, press time, and other resources on whaargrabling the same message that doesn't convince anyone but the people already on board, lulz

Action Replay Nick: It's nice to finally see you care about fiscal responsibility though.

A whole lotta THIS.

I'd venture to guess there are quite a few folks out there who don't, and can't, spend $2,000 on a dog. About as many as the ones who might be able to remember how many houses they own. Yeah, your side went there last year. Remember that?

Funny the way dems "solve" problems. They throw gobs of money at things, money they didn't create. And then, the attitude seems to be, oh well we took care of that. Back to campaign mode. Er, no...you have to come up with constructive ideas, the other guys get to criticize you. That's the way it works. You won, and you need to get over it.

Oh man, you Repubs are actually in here all gung-ho about an attack ad on a dog. You people have some serious priority problems. I'd start with recognizing that the American people have rejected your idiotic and foolish ideas, and by current demographic polls, don't seem to be looking back. Going after a DOG has got to be around #742 on the list, right?

mkfreeberg: I'd venture to guess there are quite a few folks out there who don't, and can't, spend $2,000 on a dog. About as many as the ones who might be able to remember how many houses they own. Yeah, your side went there last year. Remember that?

Funny the way dems "solve" problems. They throw gobs of money at things, money they didn't create. And then, the attitude seems to be, oh well we took care of that. Back to campaign mode. Er, no...you have to come up with constructive ideas, the other guys get to criticize you. That's the way it works. You won, and you need to get over it.

Because owning so many houses you can't remember how many there are is the same as getting a purebred dog.

I think you need to do some warmup exercises before you stretch so far.

GAT_00: Oh man, you Repubs are actually in here all gung-ho about an attack ad on a dog.

I don't see anyone in here that's "all gung-ho" about it. I do see some Liberals that are blowing that part of the ad out of proportion, though.

PacManDreaming: Action Replay Nick: It's expensive when grownups have to clean up after the children.

You mean like cleaning up after Democrats finished playing around with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Christ Almighty, man! At least get some new talking points. It's annoying as hell when you ignore the debunked ones and keep spouting 'em out. I know, I know- if you keep repeating it enough, it'll be true, right? And any evidence I post to the contrary, or ask you to provide- like the number or value of subprimes given to minority homeowners that defaulted versus the total number, or if lending practices actually changed because of this policy decision- will be promptly ignored or ad hominemed.

I mean, Good God, son, not sure how they do things up in Fort Worth, but I could stroll down the streets of San Angelo and the rednecks who voted for Palin/McCain over Obama by one of the biggest margins nationwide would admit that's a load of horse hockey.

mkfreeberg: I'd venture to guess there are quite a few folks out there who don't, and can't, spend $2,000 on a dog. About as many as the ones who might be able to remember how many houses they own. Yeah, your side went there last year. Remember that?

Funny the way dems "solve" problems. They throw gobs of money at things, money they didn't create. And then, the attitude seems to be, oh well we took care of that. Back to campaign mode. Er, no...you have to come up with constructive ideas, the other guys get to criticize you. That's the way it works. You won, and you need to get over it.

I decided to slam you some more. Come down to Tom Green county; let me show you all the middle-class folks who spend tens of thousands of dollars a year on rodeo horses- even with no hope of winning anything or making any sort of return on that investment- and remember, these are Real Muricans, who voted for Palin/McCain something on the order of 80/20 over Obama regionwide. But hell, sorry to get in the way of your demagoguery there.

ragekage: Christ Almighty, man! At least get some new talking points. It's annoying as hell when you ignore the debunked ones and keep spouting 'em out. I know, I know- if you keep repeating it enough, it'll be true, right? And any evidence I post to the contrary, or ask you to provide- like the number or value of subprimes given to minority homeowners that defaulted versus the total number, or if lending practices actually changed because of this policy decision- will be promptly ignored or ad hominemed.

Yeah, here it is being debunked, dipshiat. (new window)

PacManDreaming: I do see some Liberals that are blowing that part of the ad out of proportion, though.

It's an attack ad on a dog! It blows itself out of proportion. Of all the things to go after Obama for, though a good number would be so hypocritical that it might even make the Repub base go "Wait a minute..." this is pretty damn far down.

GAT_00: It's an attack ad on a dog!

Um, no. It's an attack ad on Obama that mentions his dog. If the whole ad had been about his dog, then I would agree with you. It was a 30 second ad and the part about Bo lasted a whole three seconds.

PacManDreaming: ragekage: Christ Almighty, man! At least get some new talking points. It's annoying as hell when you ignore the debunked ones and keep spouting 'em out. I know, I know- if you keep repeating it enough, it'll be true, right? And any evidence I post to the contrary, or ask you to provide- like the number or value of subprimes given to minority homeowners that defaulted versus the total number, or if lending practices actually changed because of this policy decision- will be promptly ignored or ad hominemed.

Yeah, here it is being debunked, dipshiat. (link to Youtube video railing on ACORN)

You're awfully predictable. Really, that's the great thing with arguing with you folks; the talking points never change, there's no actual intellectual discourse taking place, so I can hit up your MO and debunk you in front of the rest of the world without breaking a sweat, forcing you to engage in ad hominem, as I mentioned before- which only really helps you retreat into your own little world, where ACORN are big scary boogeymen, and brown people with towels on their heads are prowling around Six Flags Over Texas, looking to rape the horses, and ride off on the women.

So this policy changed. We've had long discussions about the bona fide racism and illegal and immoral lending practices that were going on. Why not show me more than a Youtube video featuring the same sort of mouthbreathing, and instead cite me some statistics? Come on, I know they're out there. Make your case, big man.

$300k for a picture of Air Force One at the Statue Of Liberty, is a drop in the bucket, compared to the millions it cost to have Chimpy buzz The Daytona 500, take a victory lap, and hang out with the crowd.

$787 billion for bailouts?

What about the TRILLIONS going to a war that was at best uneccessary, and at worst, monsterously criminal.

"Liberating" entire families with 2000 pound bombs as they lay sleeping in their beds, just as an intro to "The Shock And Awe Show"?

Priceless.

PacManDreaming: Um, no. It's an attack ad on Obama that mentions his dog. If the whole ad had been about his dog, then I would agree with you. It was a 30 second ad and the part about Bo lasted a whole three seconds.

I also liked the part about how the linked personal spending, like for game tickets and a dog to drowning the country in debt, debt that somehow wasn't an issue when Bush was doing it. I'm assuming the cronyism was something with bank execs. Do I need to bring up the huge amounts of cronyism of the Bush admin, starting with Haliburton? It's also massively hypocritical to go after a guy for personal spending when the last guy they ran owned 7 houses.

Oh, and does anyone know who the fairly cute chick at the beginning and end is? I don't watch MSNBC.

GAT_00: Going after a DOG has got to be around #742 on the list, right?

To be fair, it might have some mustard on it.

ragekage: You're awfully predictable. Really, that's the great thing with arguing with you folks; the talking points never change, there's no actual intellectual discourse taking place, so I can hit up your MO and debunk you in front of the rest of the world without breaking a sweat, forcing you to engage in ad hominem, as I mentioned before- which only really helps you retreat into your own little world, where ACORN are big scary boogeymen, and brown people with towels on their heads are prowling around Six Flags Over Texas, looking to rape the horses, and ride off on the women.

So this policy changed. We've had long discussions about the bona fide racism and illegal and immoral lending practices that were going on. Why not show me more than a Youtube video featuring the same sort of mouthbreathing, and instead cite me some statistics? Come on, I know they're out there. Make your case, big man.

*Sigh* I guess you're not intelligent enough to use Google, huh? I'm guessing you'd rather sit the and cry about no citations or proof than do a little research on your own. Besides, if you say it didn't happen enough, maybe the other retards who think like you will believe it.

Is that enough for you or do you need someone to show you how to use a search engine?

GAT_00: I also liked the part about how the linked personal spending, like for game tickets and a dog to drowning the country in debt, debt that somehow wasn't an issue when Bush was doing it.

Oh, I didn't say the ad was misleading or stupid. I just said it wasn't just about Obama's new dog. I'm still trying to figure out why the Republicans are attacking Obama and not trying to figure out a way to do better than him. I guess it's easier for them to throw mud at Obama and try to drag him to their level rather than trying to rise to his level.

GAT_00: Oh, and does anyone know who the fairly cute chick at the beginning and end is? I don't watch MSNBC.

monica novotny

Stay Cool Babylon: I don't understand why these ads are being made, as they clearly play to their base. If you are a small market football team, you don't waste most of your ad budget preaching to the choir in the city and county where you play and have fans by default. You branch into other areas of the state or even neighboring states to draw fans to your product.
No one is watching these ads and thinking, "Damn! I've been wrong all of this time!" Like the small market team branches to other locales, this party needs to come up with ideas and media spots that even PRETEND to be reaching out to independents or disgusted former members.

There has been a recent scientific breakthrough that has determined that Republicanism is a disease. That disease can be inflamed to the point where it becomes infectious if aggravated.

/I'm not sure if this is really true, but I can find no other reason.

PacManDreaming: Oh, I didn't say the ad was wasn't misleading or stupid.

FTFM.

mediablitz: The "new dog, $2000" part? You know, right at the very beginning?

Wait...I thought Senator Ted Kennedy gave them the dog.

I don't remember which thread drove me to favorite him this way, but I stand by it.

sorry about the large blank space, photobucket doesn't think that space is there.

Uchiha_Cycliste: sorry about the large blank space, photobucket doesn't think that space is there.

here, use this

Megain: Uchiha_Cycliste: sorry about the large blank space, photobucket doesn't think that space is there.

here, use this

um... I tried =P, thanks. It almost works this way too.
I wonder if the mods will resize it for me

I guess every Governor in red states are Obamas cronies

Uchiha_Cycliste: Megain: Uchiha_Cycliste: sorry about the large blank space, photobucket doesn't think that space is there.

here, use this

um... I tried =P, thanks. It almost works this way too.
I wonder if the mods will resize it for me

they can't

Okay, I watched the ad.

The ad wasn't an attack on the President's dog.

So.. yeah.


Complaining about government spending enormous sums of money is fine by me, as long as the Republican politicians aren't the ones complaining--because then it's just hypocritical.

Republican voters may feel free, based on their own assessment of how much they are or aren't BSing themselves.

/We all BS ourselves to an extent.

Megain: Uchiha_Cycliste: Megain: Uchiha_Cycliste: sorry about the large blank space, photobucket doesn't think that space is there.

here, use this

um... I tried =P, thanks. It almost works this way too.
I wonder if the mods will resize it for me

they can't

well poop.
waitasecond...
heh, I made a funny.

That dog is ugly.

Bathia_Mapes: mediablitz: The "new dog, $2000" part? You know, right at the very beginning?

Wait...I thought Senator Ted Kennedy gave them the dog.

that's what I heard

I hadn't realized he named the dog Bo. Maybe he should have gone for a hamster.

Atreides73: I hadn't realized he named the dog Bo. Maybe he should have gone for a hamster.

I'm a little pissed, because I've had a dog named Bo for a while now (His real name is Boshintang, but we call him Bo for short) and people just think we named him after the president's dog.

Bastard.

Nothing against Obama, or his dog, but I'm surprised, given the amount of photo ops that were gonna happen, that he wasn't advised against a black, or very dark dog.

Nothing racist, they're just very hard to photograph without an awful lot of work. The features don't stand out well, so they'll probably never get that quintisenntial cute dog smiling picture.

Just a silhouette.

PacManDreaming: You mean like cleaning up after Democrats finished playing around with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Wow, you just... wow. That's pretty desperate, even by Fark standards. I'm impressed.

Atreides73: I hadn't realized he named the dog Bo. Maybe he should have gone for a hamster.

It's already been done. Cheney had an ass hamster named George.

Obama paid money to cronies? Where was this sentiment when Cheney was giving it out to Halliburton. Hell Iraq was Cheney's gift to the Military Industrial Complex/Big Oil.

people forget the TARP was Bush's baby. They want to pretend it wasn't. But it was. And the stimulus is going to the states for unemployment and to keep cops on the street,schools open,buses running.

fark you conservatards for trying to smear the man for doing what he can to help. To help clean up your mess.

Iraq = 2.4 trillion


...and Iran is getting the oil...

Hobodeluxe:
fark you conservatards for trying to smear the man for doing what he can to help. To help clean up your mess.

"doing what he can do to help"?? LOL. Obama did not invent altruism and you can be damn sure he's not one. Can't you conceive that perhaps both administrations were bad? Maybe you can use Obama's superman cape to wipe of your face when he's done.

This seems less like an attack ad, and rather a prime example of Republicans not understanding teh funnies

oh and the GOP should ave their money. Don't wast it on ads like this. Obama is doing exactly what you guys want without it.

He's losing his base by not keeping his promises.
The military tribunals,dadt,compromises on health care,failing to follow through on transparency etc. Just give him time. He's doing a good job of taking himself down.

Listerine: Can't you conceive that perhaps both administrations were bad?

Conceive of? I can conceive of it, and dismiss it as a really stupid lie.

Alphax: Listerine: Can't you conceive that perhaps both administrations were bad?

Conceive of? I can conceive of it, and dismiss it as a really stupid lie.

enlighten us

Afrotaki: Wow, you just... wow. That's pretty desperate, even by Fark standards. I'm impressed.

See all of the previous links I posted earlier. Maybe then you can stop deluding yourself over who caused that mess. I know there were some Republicans in on the crap, but the vast majority of them were Democrats.

/RIP Buddy