As predictable as it is, it's funny seeing liberals cry that something so obvious to everyone else is somehow unfair! Wah!

HighOnCraic: Mrtraveler01: YELLOL: Nobody asked for more war in Afghanistan, that is all on Obama too.

Except for the Republicans who wanted to increase US precense in Afghanistan and Obama who made it his campaign pledge to focus the War on Terror where terrorists actually are (Afghanistan).

I actually support being in Afghanistan because THAT'S WHERE THE TERRORISTS ACTUALLY ARE!!!

Bush had the support of many American liberals, as well as foreign governments, when he sent troops to Afghanistan. It's only unpopular (with some people) now because Obama's in charge.

I still support it because even if AQ ran to Pakistan, we can use it as a launch site to go into Pakistan and hunt those assholes down.

I am staunchly for killing terrorists and spiking their heads on the White House lawn. I just never bought the connection between AQ and Saddam Hussain in Iraq.

Osama was the threat, not Hussain. Hussain was a humongous shiatbag, who deserved what he got but it wasn't the time or the place for us to get involved in it.

Winterwhile I see. You'd rather spend money killing people. That's sad.

LasersHurt: mjbok: heinekenftw: And why shouldn't they? We've tried to compromise and look where that got us. They can't do anything but bicker and obstruct so they can sit in the back until they learn to act like adults.

We? Are you in congress? Either way, the compromise line is a lie. Democrats have not been willing to give up anything. A compromise is a middle ground between two different positions. If a group concedes nothing, that is not a compromise no matter how often you say "you" tried to compromise.

Almost all of the legislation passed in the last two years has had Republican sponsored amendments and features in it. What's that called?

Almost all legislation passed in the previous four years had Dem sponsored amendments. If you want a b and c and I want d e and f, a bill with a b c and d is not a compromise by definition. A bill with a b not c and d would be, by definition, a compromise. If you are giving anything up, it is not a compromise.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Oh we're going from the very beginning then? Well hell, GWB went from ~85% to ~25%. That's also way down.

that you didn't finish the story after complaining we started in the third act. As I recall, Republicans got killed in the 2006 midterms and Bush handed the nuclear codes to a guy from the other party.

Can't wait for that part!

heinekenftw: HighOnCraic: Mrtraveler01: YELLOL: Nobody asked for more war in Afghanistan, that is all on Obama too.

I actually support being in Afghanistan because THAT'S WHERE THE TERRORISTS ACTUALLY ARE!!!

I still support it because even if AQ ran to Pakistan, we can use it as a launch site to go into Pakistan and hunt those assholes down.

Osama was the threat, not Hussain. Hussain was a humongous shiatbag, who deserved what he got but it wasn't the time or the place for us to get involved in it.

Winterwhile I see. You'd rather spend money killing people. That's sad.

Please remember this when there is liberal outcry to get involved in Darfur.

Maestro1701
tinyarena: Written May 10th, 2010
List of Obama Administration Accomplishments:

You dismiss the entire list of 90 accomplishments and then have the gall to say "I'm not a Republican, nor am I a conservative."

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we have the mocking term Fark Independent.

HotWingConspiracy: Six more years. Get used to it.

Bwah ha.

Let's see, in 2008 we had: 1) Two unpopular wars; 2) An unpopular GOP president; 3) The Mainstream Media slobbering over themselves for the first-time ever black president possibility; 4) Horrible old wooden GOP candidate; 5) Bad economy; 6) 2-1 Democrat fundraising advantage.

And yet McCain was still up in the polls until the Lehman collapse less than two months from the election. Which Obama would have lost with a 5-point swing.

What exactly about today's environment do you think keeps Obama that 5-point margin? The 10% unemployment? Obamacare? His 37% approval rating?

Aerosmith has a song for you.

Gunther: Dear god, this thread is a goldmine for people looking to fill out their "ignore" lists. Damn near every troll on Fark is posting in here.

Must be a lib. Too bad Fark doesn't have a "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!" button.

Hey now what's that fuss, Republicans move to the back of the bus.

FTFA: He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

It's a good analogy. Maybe if people offended by this actually listened to what he was saying instead of weeding out what they wanted to hear they could understand. Unfortunately a bigoted mind forever corrupts that which it observes. I don't see what the big deal is.

mjbok: Please remember this when there is liberal outcry to get involved in Darfur.

And who apppointed us to be world police? Why would we get involved in Darfur? As tragic as those events are, I'm not sure we have the resources to get involved, while fighting terrorism in afghanistan, protecting our own borders, and trying to fix the economy.

In a perfect world, I'd say, hell yeah lets kick some ass in Darfur, but it isn't like that.

And when I speak of wasting money to get people killed, I was referring to Iraq, in which there was no threat against the US, no connection to 9/11 or AQ and was unbudgeted and a collossal waste of money, yet the Repubs cheered Bush on.

The AlbinoSaxon: Hey now what's that fuss, Republicans move to the back of the bus.

Haha, I'll let Obama be my chauffeur when he becomes unemployed in 2012, call me Barry.

patrick767: Maestro1701
tinyarena: Written May 10th, 2010
List of Obama Administration Accomplishments:

You dismiss the entire list of 90 accomplishments and then have the gall to say "I'm not a Republican, nor am I a conservative."

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we have the mocking term Fark Independent.

Good God. Your reading comprehension skills are EXACTLY zero. I did not dismiss the entire list. I merely pointed out that certain items on the list either A) were not really accomplishments at all, such as "ordering studies", B) cannot be judged as effective yet (such as Health Care Reform) as only time will tell if the long term effects were positive, or C) holdovers from previous administrations. PLEASE point out to me where I "dismissed the entire list."

As for me having the "gall" to declare that I am not a Republican nor a conservative, I VOTED FOR OBAMA! I'm STILL hoping that he will succeed, even as I am afraid that he will not. Yes, I have the gall to self-identify. I also have the gall to declare you a pathetic waste of plasma.

The funny part about this is of all the "Fark Independents" biatching about how Obama is a big meanie for saying he's not going to listen to the GOP, I can't seem to find any of them in the thread from yesterday who said they refuse to compromise if they win back the house.

Funny how they only think it's mean when Obama does it.

Mrtraveler01

so, how your war doing? Not so well?

I never thought you were a terrorist sympathizer. I learn more about you every day.

Why do you want Al-Qaeda to win?

Bush gave you a plan, you sent in Targets (US troups) instead.

Its your war to lose now.

man up

winterwhile:

Too late, everyone knows you're a terrorist sympathizer now.

stirfrybry: Back of the bus, enemieslying sack of shiat retards!

FTFY

Ringshadow: Wow at this thread.



/yes, this isn't constructive, but neither is 95% of the thread

Any time a political thread is main paged, the derp skyrockets more than if it was just posted on the politics tab. However, this thread is alike a troll alt magnet.

StanTheMan: Gunther: Dear god, this thread is a goldmine for people looking to fill out their "ignore" lists. Damn near every troll on Fark is posting in here.

Must be a lib. Too bad Fark doesn't have a "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!" button.

Hey you forgot to use your lame attention whoring gimmick.

heinekenftw: mjbok: Please remember this when there is liberal outcry to get involved in Darfur.

And who apppointed us to be world police? Why would we get involved in Darfur? As tragic as those events are, I'm not sure we have the resources to get involved, while fighting terrorism in afghanistan, protecting our own borders, and trying to fix the economy.

In a perfect world, I'd say, hell yeah lets kick some ass in Darfur, but it isn't like that.

And when I speak of wasting money to get people killed, I was referring to Iraq, in which there was no threat against the US, no connection to 9/11 or AQ and was unbudgeted and a collossal waste of money, yet the Repubs cheered Bush on.

I agree. We are not responsible for the world...however there has been lots of discussion of what we SHOULD do in Darfur. Many who decry actions in Iraq are appalled we let genocide happen elsewhere. Can't have it both ways.

StanTheMan: Gunther: Dear god, this thread is a goldmine for people looking to fill out their "ignore" lists. Damn near every troll on Fark is posting in here.

Must be a lib. Too bad Fark doesn't have a "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!" button.

Well, that's not very nice. I'm giving you a compliment by assuming you're trolling: if you actually believe the crap you're spouting, you're much, much dumber than I thought you were.

mjbok: I agree. We are not responsible for the world...however there has been lots of discussion of what we SHOULD do in Darfur. Many who decry actions in Iraq are appalled we let genocide happen elsewhere. Can't have it both ways.

Don't be an idiot. Just because someone doesn't think Iraq is a justifiable war, it doesn't mean that they also think that NO wars are justifiable. It's like saying "if you thought declaring war on Japan was a good idea, you must also support declaring war on Australia, or you're a hypocrite". The two have nothing to do with each other.

mjbok: I agree. We are not responsible for the world...however there has been lots of discussion of what we SHOULD do in Darfur. Many who decry actions in Iraq are appalled we let genocide happen elsewhere. Can't have it both ways.

I think it is more to point out the hypocrisy, then any actual desire to invade Darfur. After all, if we're going into Iraq to free the Iraqis from tyranny, why don't we do the same in Darfur? Its only a hypothetical question, but the point stands.

Awesome.

I always thought that the first thing Obama should have done after taking the Presidency was crack a big ol' bull whip and yell "Who's your master now biatches".

"Ignorance is bliss"

Everyone in this thread is approaching Rapture.

Gunther:

mjbok: I agree. We are not responsible for the world...however there has been lots of discussion of what we SHOULD do in Darfur. Many who decry actions in Iraq are appalled we let genocide happen elsewhere. Can't have it both ways.

Don't be an idiot. Just because someone doesn't think Iraq is a justifiable war, it doesn't mean that they also think that NO wars are justifiable. It's like saying "if you thought declaring war on Japan was a good idea, you must also support declaring war on Australia, or you're a hypocrite". The two have nothing to do with each other.

Pretty much any reason to do anything about Darfur could have been applied to Iraq.

Mrtraveler01

winterwhile:

Too late, everyone knows you're a terrorist sympathizer now.

and we all know

you can't man up

winterwhile: heinekenftw
Despicable. You assholes would rather kill foreigners than help your own countrymen.

/also, anyone calling him "Chairman" can go to hell.

hint

wars end

entitlement do not

get it?

Hint, they haven't

mjbok: Pretty much any reason to do anything about Darfur could have been applied to Iraq.

I'm pretty sure Iraq wasn't in the middle of a civil war that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians when we invaded.

He complains that the Republicans keep voting against his bullying tactics, and makes statements like this (not the first) that point out how little he cares about what Republicans think. OK. How's it working?

Standard Deviant: He complains that the Republicans keep voting against his bullying tactics, and makes statements like this (not the first) that point out how little he cares about what Republicans think. OK. How's it working?

Good point -- I don't know why he isn't attacking the Republicans harder. Republicans just came out and said that when they win they will NOT compromise. He should come out with a statement at least matching that, none of this namby-pamby stuff. Something like "See this pen? It's going to veto every single thing the Republicans produce. Period. For two years. Convince me not to."

Gunther: mjbok: Pretty much any reason to do anything about Darfur could have been applied to Iraq.

I'm pretty sure Iraq wasn't in the middle of a civil war that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians when we invaded.

Saddam was estimated to have been responsible for between 600k and 1 millions civilian deaths.

Tarkus: I don't get the outrage. Adults ride in front, kids ride in back.

Why do they get to ride at all? Close their hands in the doors and drive away, I say.

mjbok: Saddam was estimated to have been responsible for between 600k and 1 millions civilian deaths.

Estimated by retards who tried to pin any and all deaths on him. Nobody thought the guy wasn't absolutely evil, but count on Republicans to exaggerate every single thing about him. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go build a pilotless drone that will fly nukes.

I love love LOVE that it was the black president who said that. Love it.

bigdavediode: mjbok: Saddam was estimated to have been responsible for between 600k and 1 millions civilian deaths.

Estimated by retards who tried to pin any and all deaths on him. Nobody thought the guy wasn't absolutely evil, but count on Republicans to exaggerate every single thing about him. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go build a pilotless drone that will fly nukes.

First google result I found. A less right leaning estimate was still over 300k. I'm just saying that certain reasons to intervene elsewhere would have applied if that was the reason given to invade Iraq, which it obviously wasn't. The difference being that although not a threat, the Iraq govt had a history of invading elsewhere. Still not a good enough reason to do it, though.

tinyarena: jim_paul:

Wow, I didn't think ignorance went up to '11'

#1 Zafler didn't post it, I did.
#2 Robert P. Watson, Ph.D. isn't a "some partisan spin job" he's a history professor.
#3 He is chronicling whats on record, not making "unsubstantiated statements."
#4 Why bother explaining. You don't like Obama, and you never will.

Most of that list is unsubstantiated spin about what MIGHT happen in the future or giving him credit for actions which have yielded exactly ZERO results. Where are the FACTS about things that haven't even happened yet?

Because Watson is a history professor means what? That he isn't capable of partisan spin jobs? Evidently you have never attended school beyond the 12th grade level or you'd have at least the common sense not to make such a ridiculously moronic argument.

I feel sad for you because you actually believe this.

Get out of your house and explore the big wide world once in a while. And while you're at it, try actually READING the stuff you're cutting and pasting and you won't look like such a fool.

Zafler: HungryHungryHippo

jim_paul gave a fine example of what I was pointing out, meant use that as more of a general "you". It happens every time a list pointing out what this admin has accomplished is posted: someone uses the most paper thin excuse available to dismiss it.

Noting that most of that list was pure bullshiat is a public service to anyone who was tempted to actually take it seriously.

A good quarter of the "accomplishments" are giving Obama credit for things which were either started or left in place from the Bush administration.

Another good quarter of the "accomplishments" are giving him credit for SAYING he's going to do something. Newsflash: saying you're going to do something is NOT the same thing as having actually done it.

Another quarter of the "accomplishments" are simply reprints from the DNC Talking Points making unsubstantiated or provably false assertions about legislation which has passed.

The final quarter are the same "accomplishments" which every single Congressperson (save 1 or 2) is running as far away as possible from on the campaign trail because they are so hated and unpopular with voters. So feel free to keep claiming credit for those.

Next time try citing an ACTUAL list of ACTUAL accomplishments rather than just a partisan hack's wet dream wish list of things he thinks people SHOULD give Obama credit for having said or thought about...you know, instead of actually DOING.

HungryHungryHippo: jst3pThe former does, the latter does not.
You are certainly free to believe that, but unfortunately you would be wrong to do so. Bigots are sly, and 'ride in the back' is an allusion to 'back of the bus'. Obviously it is not the only meaning of 'ride in the back', but it HAS been co-opted by some to also mean 'back of the bus'. Just because you may not be aware of that doesn't mean it's not true. But, if you don't believe me, the next time you have the opportunity to drive several people somewhere, one of whom is black, just the one who is black that he has to 'ride in back'. See if you get any funny looks.

Your making up context to attach to a statement that was never there just to support your position, and it says a lot more about you than it does Obama. Plus, I guess it's a lot easier than just admitting you're wrong.

Your = "You're."

mjbok: Gunther: mjbok: Pretty much any reason to do anything about Darfur could have been applied to Iraq.

I'm pretty sure Iraq wasn't in the middle of a civil war that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians when we invaded.

Saddam was estimated to have been responsible for between 600k and 1 millions civilian deaths.

Well that's just silly. The highest estimates I've seen put the number of civilian deaths on Saddam's hands at between 30K and 100K. Where'd you get those numbers?

WIN.

Fark wealthy, Republican Whitey.

Only problem: there are drunken idiots driving the car.

Man, I don't think I've seen more mouthbreathing, teabagging retards in a political thread in a long time.

It's like they all learned how to connect to the internet, and they're posting in a Fark thread just to see if it works.

Good.

If only he'd started pointing out(& the rest of the country) what a bunch of dangerous screw ups the GOP are about a year and a half ago...

Have not read the thread but:

Not an Obama fan.

What he said was not out of line, although it might be a bit at odds with his message of cooperation with a possibly Republican Congress.

[Citation Given] (new window)

Worked in preview, how wierd:

Let's try this again... (new window)