ChaoticLimbs: When you donate to both sides, you're not making sure your guy wins, you're making sure that the guy who wins is your guy. There's a difference. Democracy is dead, and these people killed it.

It's not surprising at all that employees of the same company might have different political views. Why is this a bad thing?

Jackson Herring: Just looking at a picture of him I understand what it is to have a belt size in meters

I understand what it's like to have a penis, and to not be able to see that penis for decades.

tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: imontheinternet: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x811]

Here are the figures that matter.

What's that you say? Both sides are the bad? Hmm, what an interesting observation. I guess I will be obligated to vote for the Republican in that case.

You are missing the point.
One of those people is much more in the pocket of wall street than the other.
(hint, see that the numbers on the left are much higher than the numbers of the right)

You make a good point. Obama is largely responsible for the deregulation of Wall Street between 2000 and 2008 that caused the recession coddling wall street over the last 3 years.

ftfy.

So the recession that blossomed during the 2008 election was caused by Obama's actions in subsequent years? That darn Obama and his time machine!

[www.underconsideration.com image 410x224]

/But seriously, what a silly comment you made.

Can you not read?
0bama has coddled wall street for the last 3 years.
If they are history's greatest villains for causing the near collapse of the world, why has 0bama been such a nice guy to them? Why all the coddling?

You asserted that the 2008 Bush Recession was caused by Obama's actions between 2009 and 2012. This makes no sense, as 2008 happened before 2009.

I didn't assert anything about the Bush Recession or even the state of the economy.
Not even close.
What I wrote is highlighted for your convenience.
I will await your apology.

You edited my post with a FTFY that indicates you think you have transcended the restrictions of the typical manner in which time passes.

What you wrote is bolded for your convenience.
I will await your apology and for you to post a copy of your Kindergarten diploma.

gimmegimme:

I said
"You are missing the point.
One of those people is much more in the pocket of wall street than the other.
(hint, see that the numbers on the left are much higher than the numbers of the right)"


Your said: "You asserted that the 2008 Bush Recession was caused by Obama's actions between 2009 and 2012". .

If you are going to lie, at least put a little bit of effort into it.
Otherwise it is just really embarrassing for you.

Romney had a less privileged upbringing than Sasha and Mahlia have had. And the distinction between the Cranbrook School ($28k/year w/ 30% getting aid) and Punahou School ($18k/year w/ 11% getting aid) seems like a stretch. So it seems we don't have a "common man" in this race. Get over it.

Though one of them did eat a dog. So one's more common than the other.

sprawl15: TFerWannaBe: Once again: this graphic does not show the difference between individual and corporate contributions.

The graphic makes no sense at all. The numbers are all over the place, and it's in direct conflict with what's listed at the website it references.

Ah - thanks for that information. I guess I'll downgrade my assessment to "deliberately misleading."

Garet Garrett: Romney had a less privileged upbringing than Sasha and Mahlia have had. And the distinction between the Cranbrook School ($28k/year w/ 30% getting aid) and Punahou School ($18k/year w/ 11% getting aid) seems like a stretch. So it seems we don't have a "common man" in this race. Get over it.

Though one of them did eat a dog. So one's more common than the other.

Damn, I was really excited about voting for Mahlia for President in November!

I cannot possibly vote for a president who is financially successful. We have set a precedent in this country of electing presidents who came from humble means and accomplished precious little in their public and private lives. We do not have a history of elitism in this country and I am glad the election of Barack Obama bucked this trend.

Garet Garrett: Romney had a less privileged upbringing than Sasha and Mahlia have had. And the distinction between the Cranbrook School ($28k/year w/ 30% getting aid) and Punahou School ($18k/year w/ 11% getting aid) seems like a stretch. So it seems we don't have a "common man" in this race. Get over it.

Though one of them did eat a dog. So one's more common than the other.

Do you think that President Obama had a privileged upbringing? He's the product of a broken home and absentee father who pulled himself up by his bootstraps to literally become President of the United States. He's the model for what Republicans say America is like for everyone.

Garet Garrett: Romney had a less privileged upbringing than Sasha and Mahlia have had. And the distinction between the Cranbrook School ($28k/year w/ 30% getting aid) and Punahou School ($18k/year w/ 11% getting aid) seems like a stretch. So it seems we don't have a "common man" in this race. Get over it.

Though one of them did eat a dog. So one's more common than the other.

so...because Romney grew up outside of the white house, that means Obama was always wealthy?

What the fark, man?

Philip Francis Queeg: Garet Garrett: Romney had a less privileged upbringing than Sasha and Mahlia have had. And the distinction between the Cranbrook School ($28k/year w/ 30% getting aid) and Punahou School ($18k/year w/ 11% getting aid) seems like a stretch. So it seems we don't have a "common man" in this race. Get over it.

Though one of them did eat a dog. So one's more common than the other.

Damn, I was really excited about voting for Mahlia for President in November!

Obama is just a figurehead, Mahlia runs everything. Open your eyes people!

gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: imontheinternet: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x811]

Here are the figures that matter.

What's that you say? Both sides are the bad? Hmm, what an interesting observation. I guess I will be obligated to vote for the Republican in that case.

You are missing the point.
One of those people is much more in the pocket of wall street than the other.
(hint, see that the numbers on the left are much higher than the numbers of the right)

You make a good point. Obama is largely responsible for the deregulation of Wall Street between 2000 and 2008 that caused the recession coddling wall street over the last 3 years.

ftfy.

So the recession that blossomed during the 2008 election was caused by Obama's actions in subsequent years? That darn Obama and his time machine!

[www.underconsideration.com image 410x224]

/But seriously, what a silly comment you made.

Can you not read?
0bama has coddled wall street for the last 3 years.
If they are history's greatest villains for causing the near collapse of the world, why has 0bama been such a nice guy to them? Why all the coddling?

You asserted that the 2008 Bush Recession was caused by Obama's actions between 2009 and 2012. This makes no sense, as 2008 happened before 2009.

I didn't assert anything about the Bush Recession or even the state of the economy.
Not even close.
What I wrote is highlighted for your convenience.
I will await your apology.

You edited my post with a FTFY that indicates you think you have transcended the restrictions of the typical manner in which time passes.

What you wrote is bolded for your convenience.
I will await your apology and for you to post a copy of your Kindergarten diploma.

Looks like you don't know how to read.
YOU wrote that: " 0bama is largely responsible for the deregulation of Wall Street between 2000 and 2008 that caused the recession "
I did a FTFY which struck out that last part and replaced it with "coddling wall street".

Go read the thread.
Seriously, at least put some effort into your lies.

o5iiawah: I cannot possibly vote for a president who is financially successful. We have set a precedent in this country of electing presidents who came from humble means and accomplished precious little in their public and private lives. We do not have a history of elitism in this country and I am glad the election of Barack Obama bucked this trend.

I'll take "missing the point" for $100 please, Alex.

Garet Garrett: Romney had a less privileged upbringing than Sasha and Mahlia have had. And the distinction between the Cranbrook School ($28k/year w/ 30% getting aid) and Punahou School ($18k/year w/ 11% getting aid) seems like a stretch. So it seems we don't have a "common man" in this race. Get over it.

Though one of them did eat a dog. So one's more common than the other.

The fark does this have to do with anything? Do you have farking rocks for brains?

o5iiawah: I cannot possibly vote for a president who is financially successful. We have set a precedent in this country of electing presidents who came from humble means and accomplished precious little in their public and private lives. We do not have a history of elitism in this country and I am glad the election of Barack Obama bucked this trend.

Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon to name a few recent ones that came from middle class or poor beginning... Not to mention Romney's whole shtick is war on middle class people, that is what he has spent his life doing financially.

gimmegimme:
Do you think that President Obama had a privileged upbringing? He's the product of a broken home and absentee father who pulled himself up by his bootstraps to literally become President of the United States. \

his father was never the POTUS.

tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: imontheinternet: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x811]

Here are the figures that matter.

What's that you say? Both sides are the bad? Hmm, what an interesting observation. I guess I will be obligated to vote for the Republican in that case.

You are missing the point.
One of those people is much more in the pocket of wall street than the other.
(hint, see that the numbers on the left are much higher than the numbers of the right)

You make a good point. Obama is largely responsible for the deregulation of Wall Street between 2000 and 2008 that caused the recession coddling wall street over the last 3 years.

ftfy.

So the recession that blossomed during the 2008 election was caused by Obama's actions in subsequent years? That darn Obama and his time machine!

[www.underconsideration.com image 410x224]

/But seriously, what a silly comment you made.

Can you not read?
0bama has coddled wall street for the last 3 years.
If they are history's greatest villains for causing the near collapse of the world, why has 0bama been such a nice guy to them? Why all the coddling?

You asserted that the 2008 Bush Recession was caused by Obama's actions between 2009 and 2012. This makes no sense, as 2008 happened before 2009.

I didn't assert anything about the Bush Recession or even the state of the economy.
Not even close.
What I wrote is highlighted for your convenience.
I will await your apology.

You edited my post with a FTFY that indicates you think you have transcended the restrictions of the typical manner in which time passes.

What you wrote is bolded for your convenience.
I will await your apology and for you to post a copy of your Kindergarten diploma.

Looks like you don't know how to read.
YOU wrote that: " 0bama is largely responsible for the deregulation of Wall Street between 2000 and 2008 that caused the recession "
I d ...

Eh, mea culpa. I made an error by reading your post as I replied instead of the thread. You made an error by trying to shift attention away from the fact that the Bush Administration torpedoed the economy and deliberately farked everyone but the top 10%.

o5iiawah: I cannot possibly vote for a president who is financially successful. We have set a precedent in this country of electing presidents who came from humble means and accomplished precious little in their public and private lives. We do not have a history of elitism in this country and I am glad the election of Barack Obama bucked this trend.

Hard to imagine that a rich, well connected JFK, son of a bootlegger could run for office against a former VP and win.

gimmegimme: gimmegimme: Eh, mea culpa. I made an error by reading your post as I replied instead of the thread. You made an error by trying to shift attention away from the fact that the Bush Administration torpedoed the economy and deliberately farked everyone but the top 10%.


It is a problem with fark that the crossed out stuff doesn't stay crossed out when people reply.

No, I did not make an error. I was sticking to my point about 0bama coddling wall street and I did not take the bait of getting side tracked with "the economy was bad before 0bama" arguments. that wasn't the point.

tenpoundsofcheese: o5iiawah: I cannot possibly vote for a president who is financially successful. We have set a precedent in this country of electing presidents who came from humble means and accomplished precious little in their public and private lives. We do not have a history of elitism in this country and I am glad the election of Barack Obama bucked this trend.

Hard to imagine that a rich, well connected JFK, son of a bootlegger could run for office against a former VP and win.

There was more than one "rich, well-connected JFK" who ran for office against a former VP and won?

Ambivalence: I'm only 15 generations removed from scottish royalty, so totally understand dude.

I'm only 15 generations from English royalty, until my stupid family members ruined that! Thanks Edward Whalley and Oliver Cromwell!

/yep, both those farkers are in my family.

Confabulat: My grandparents fled Ukraine during the Bolshevik Revolution, so I completely understand the fear of Democratic Communist overlords.

Do you hate it when people call it THE Ukraine? My former roommate is Ukrainian, and she hates it nearly as much as she hates Russia.

Garet Garrett: Romney had a less privileged upbringing than Sasha and Mahlia have had. And the distinction between the Cranbrook School ($28k/year w/ 30% getting aid) and Punahou School ($18k/year w/ 11% getting aid) seems like a stretch. So it seems we don't have a "common man" in this race. Get over it.

Though one of them did eat a dog. So one's more common than the other.

If you are going to do that comparison wouldn't it be more accurate and fair to compare Sasha ans Malia to Romney's sons rather than to Romney? I don't think eitehr of the Obama children have $100 Million trust funds.

gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: o5iiawah: I cannot possibly vote for a president who is financially successful. We have set a precedent in this country of electing presidents who came from humble means and accomplished precious little in their public and private lives. We do not have a history of elitism in this country and I am glad the election of Barack Obama bucked this trend.

Hard to imagine that a rich, well connected JFK, son of a bootlegger could run for office against a former VP and win.

There was more than one "rich, well-connected JFK" who ran for office against a former VP and won?

No there was not.
This happened in 1960.
Google it.

My grandfather fought in WW2, therefore I know what it's like to be a war hero who toppled Hitler.

HOORAY!!!

tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: o5iiawah: I cannot possibly vote for a president who is financially successful. We have set a precedent in this country of electing presidents who came from humble means and accomplished precious little in their public and private lives. We do not have a history of elitism in this country and I am glad the election of Barack Obama bucked this trend.

Hard to imagine that a rich, well connected JFK, son of a bootlegger could run for office against a former VP and win.

There was more than one "rich, well-connected JFK" who ran for office against a former VP and won?

No there was not.
This happened in 1960.
Google it.

Your sentence implied there was more than one. (You impugned the clarity of my sentence about Obama's father, so I was returning the favor.)

gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: o5iiawah: I cannot possibly vote for a president who is financially successful. We have set a precedent in this country of electing presidents who came from humble means and accomplished precious little in their public and private lives. We do not have a history of elitism in this country and I am glad the election of Barack Obama bucked this trend.

Hard to imagine that a rich, well connected JFK, son of a bootlegger could run for office against a former VP and win.

There was more than one "rich, well-connected JFK" who ran for office against a former VP and won?

No there was not.
This happened in 1960.
Google it.

Your sentence implied there was more than one. (You impugned the clarity of my sentence about Obama's father, so I was returning the favor.)


There were many people with the initials JFK during the 1960s (James Francis Kooperstone, as an example)
Some were rich, some were well connected, some poor, etc.

This thread has proven the old adage "when you're paid by the line, even the dumbest shiat makes sense".

tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: o5iiawah: I cannot possibly vote for a president who is financially successful. We have set a precedent in this country of electing presidents who came from humble means and accomplished precious little in their public and private lives. We do not have a history of elitism in this country and I am glad the election of Barack Obama bucked this trend.

Hard to imagine that a rich, well connected JFK, son of a bootlegger could run for office against a former VP and win.

There was more than one "rich, well-connected JFK" who ran for office against a former VP and won?

No there was not.
This happened in 1960.
Google it.

Your sentence implied there was more than one. (You impugned the clarity of my sentence about Obama's father, so I was returning the favor.)


There were many people with the initials JFK during the 1960s (James Francis Kooperstone, as an example)
Some were rich, some were well connected, some poor, etc.

Yes, and how many of those JFKs "ran for office against a former VP and won?"

//Google shows no results for a "James Francis Kooperstone"

imontheinternet: Philip Francis Queeg: imontheinternet: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x811]

Here are the figures that matter.

What's that you say? Both sides are the bad? Hmm, what an interesting observation. I guess I will be obligated to vote for the Republican in that case.

I just get annoyed when things get so hyperpartisan Obama. I don't see how people can still be so enthusiastic about him. I do think he's better than Romney, but not be a wide margin.

We're not hyperpartisan about Obama. We just look at the GOP and what they've done over the last 12 years and we grab onto Obama like a drowning man swept out to sea reaching for a lifesaver.

Garet Garrett: Romney had a less privileged upbringing than Sasha and Mahlia have had. And the distinction between the Cranbrook School ($28k/year w/ 30% getting aid) and Punahou School ($18k/year w/ 11% getting aid) seems like a stretch. So it seems we don't have a "common man" in this race. Get over it.

Though one of them did eat a dog. So one's more common than the other.

This is one of the stupidest attempts at 'Both sides are bad' posted today.

Are you and your ilk even remotely capable of doing anything besides apples to rocket launchers comparisons?

Arguing with "Ten Pounds of Dick Cheese" is like masturbating to pics of Snooki.
Sure, you'll feel good eventually, but why is your prick so soft?

Gyrfalcon: Jim_Callahan: Romney seems to think that literally every single person in the US making fun of him means that he needs to try to relate directly to the average person. I'm pretty sure that has cause and effect exactly backward, his attempts to "relate" are the reason we make fun of him-- if he'd man up and just be basically honest we'd stop mocking him. Albeit maybe it's better for him if we think he's funny than if he's actually running on his policies...

Something like that. I'm getting almost embarrassed for him. It's like "Mitt, it's not your money per se everyone has trouble with. Hell, lots of wealthy people are respected in America: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett--even the Kennedys. It's your constant attempts to pretend you understand poverty when everyone knows you don't, and your awkward attempts to fit in in places you clearly feel out of place that we have issues with. You're like George Bush 'clearing brush' on his Crawford Ranch to look all folksy and manly--it doesn't work. Do something you're comfortable with, with people you actually like, then you might not wedge your foot so far into your mouth."

Of course, that's where he laughs about putting people out of work, so maybe that's not going to help any.

to be fair, Bush did actually clear brush in his ranch long before he was president. that he was doing it himself as president was probably a big publicity stunt, but I do think the guy probably worked his ranch a bit in the past.

/didn't like him, BTW, not a Bush-bot.

NeverDrunk23: Garet Garrett: Romney had a less privileged upbringing than Sasha and Mahlia have had. And the distinction between the Cranbrook School ($28k/year w/ 30% getting aid) and Punahou School ($18k/year w/ 11% getting aid) seems like a stretch. So it seems we don't have a "common man" in this race. Get over it.

Though one of them did eat a dog. So one's more common than the other.

This is one of the stupidest attempts at 'Both sides are bad' posted today.

Are you and your ilk even remotely capable of doing anything besides apples to rocket launchers comparisons?



You should be glad Republicans were able to finish the first few chapters of a book published in 1995.

Lord_Baull: Arguing with "Ten Pounds of Dick Cheese" is like masturbating to pics of Snooki.
Sure, you'll feel good eventually, but why is your prick so soft?

Don't judge me, man. She is hawt.

contrapunctus: George Carlin once remarked that he kept his sanity by fostering a detached view of American lunacy. To him, the great freakshow of American life was entertainment to be consumed; not be taken seriously. He truly felt that we're doomed as a country and as a species.

With that in mind, just imagine the entertainment value of working class Americans voting into the presidency a man who:

1. Made a fortune destroying our manufacturing base as well as middle class people's lives.

2. Belongs to a whackjob cult that was started by a known conman.

3. Intends to decimate social safety nets in the midst of a bad recession, while making our current tax system even more favorable to the oligarchy.

The hilarity alone is worth the price of admission! A vote for Romney is a vote for entertainment! Riots, fuel shortages, increased poverty, violence. We're talking Emmy award winning television here folks.

//Some say I'm a dreamer.
//I'm not the only one.

Wow. Just read the passage you're talking about (link ^) and it pretty much perfectly sums up how I feel about politics and issues and humanity in general.

keylock71: I love that the GOP partisan shills are going with the dog eating thing...

That'll certainly make them seem less bigoted and xenophobic then they already do.


People eat dogs and horses in other countries. Get over it, you provincial morons.

Agreed. The point is that we are against TORTURING ANIMALS. Sure, I love a good hamburger, but I don't think that the cow should be strapped to a helicopter and swing around for five hours before it is slaughtered by being bled to death by a thousand small cuts.

I pay a higher percentage in federal taxes than Mitt Romney.

as does almost everyone here who has a job

keylock71: I love that the GOP partisan shills are going with the dog eating thing...

That'll certainly make them seem less bigoted and xenophobic then they already do.


People eat dogs and horses in other countries. Get over it, you provincial morons.

And he was a little kid. It's not like he said, "Hey stepdad, let's go butcher Rover and eat him for dinner!" Hell, little kids eat their own boogers.