If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   When Obama goes fundraising, liberals defend him by saying "politicians have to raise money." When he goes fundraising more than the last five presidents COMBINED, they defend him by saying that "it's much harder for him"   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 341
    More: Obvious, President Obama, human beings, permanent campaign, Reince Priebus, President Gerald Ford, swing states, Clearly, President Jimmy Carter  
•       •       •

1577 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Apr 2012 at 9:36 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



341 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-29 10:48:49 PM
Would you prefer that money he is receiving be sent somewhere else? Redistributed, perhaps?
 
2012-04-29 10:53:43 PM

stoli n coke: badhatharry: It's almost as bad as when Bush spent on vacation at his ranch political prop so he could play cowboy and give Republicans Brokeback tingly feelings in Texas.

He bought it right before the 2000 election and sold it right after leaving office. It was just a ploy for the dry drunk spoiled New England blueblood daddy's boy to appear folksy, and the idiots fell for it.


Hah! Funny sh*t.
 
2012-04-29 10:54:37 PM
With every sad attempt at mudslinging, the Republicans show how utterly lost they are. They really have nothing against Obama because 1) he knows their game and 2) they wasted everything going up to 2010. At this point, all of this Obama stuff they try to make hay with just shows how badly they are as a political party: their little Southern Strategy is failing and the hicks are getting pissy about now being kowtowed to. Any attempt to appease the hicks upsets everybody else because the hicks really aren't in line with any current American thought, and their demands are ways the Rich are buying them off. Everybody knows this, even the hicks, and the hicks are still trying to put together why things that fool them can't be used to fool other people. It's almost like they're the stupidest people in the nation....

So this is where the Republican Party is now: destroying any attempt to legitimately widen their base to appease a Base that is slowly turning on them. And as Obama continues the Clintonian way of cherrypicking Republican positions and turning them into Democratic ones with remarkable ease, the Republicans find themselves on the edge of history. The real difference here isn't conservative vs. liberal, it's sanity versus outright retardation. The Democrats--especially Obama--have now framed the new narrative so well that the Republicans have no recourse. Note how this whole election cycle has been one long case of Hopefuls tactfully ducking out to see what happens next. The only ones who are really left are those who have been thrown out and need a retirement fund or those too greedy to really have a future anywhere outside of the Party.

The next four years will really determine what happens to the Republican Party, and if various old school members keep being voted out by their own voters desperate for a return on the thirty-year investment to screw themselves over, we're looking at the Democrats winning out simply because they actually know how to play politics. The Republican Party is reaching its end. The sad thing is, most of their Base won't go graceful into the sweet night. They're going to biatch, claw, and whine and make everybody else miserable until they finally kick off. Which won't be that long, since they're suicidal enough to deny themselves even the bare minimum of rights and care that most Western nations have.

But that's not important: let's biatch and whine about Obama! I imagine if you wasted the majority of your life on pointless hatred and bullshiat that realizing it would be a stretch, so continuing on to showcase the Concorde Fallacy as the main focus of your life might be the only meaning their sad, wasted lives actually has.
 
2012-04-29 10:56:23 PM

Weaver95: ox45tallboy: Weaver95: granted...you might have just fell asleep through econ 101...lots of people do. personally I found the subject fascinating. it's almost enough to make you start believing in conspiracy theory.

Seems you might have caught up on nap time during American Government. Especially if you think that tax cuts, regulation of the financial markets, huge no-bid contracts amounting to a piece of GDP to the left of the decimal, and investigations/prosecutions (or lack thereof) of financial impropriety by the DOJ don't have an effect of the economy.

Not to mention war. War definitely doesn't have any effect on the economy, does it?

all of those have an effect, yes...but not a direct one. that's the job of the Federal Reserve. in fact, much of what you mentioned (save declaring war) isn't the President's job either. tax cuts, regulation of financial markets, no-bid contracts...all that is either the job of the Fed Reserve and/or congress. other agencies can (and do) get involved...but congress is supposed to sort out any conflicts of interests. oversight of various federal regulatory agencies is supposedly their job after all...but meh. they'd rather just let the President take the fall.


Ummm... since 1921, the President prepares the freakin' budget of the WHOLE FARKING UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, and then it gets hacked to pieces by Congress. Also, the DOJ, DHS (especially ICE - tell me customs enforcement of smuggling and especially immigration does not have a DIRECT effect on the economy), the FBI (investigation)... as part of the Executive branch, ALL of these are directly controlled by policy set by the President, and he is DIRECTLY responsible for the economic impact of this policy.

Starting to regret those naps in Political Science and American Government now, aren't you? I know, most people find it boring, but I like knowing how my country ACTUALLY works, rather than just relying on a professor of economics' opinion on politics.
 
2012-04-29 10:58:15 PM

ox45tallboy: Ummm... since 1921, the President prepares the freakin' budget of the WHOLE FARKING UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, and then it gets hacked to pieces by Congress. Also, the DOJ, DHS (especially ICE - tell me customs enforcement of smuggling and especially immigration does not have a DIRECT effect on the economy), the FBI (investigation)... as part of the Executive branch, ALL of these are directly controlled by policy set by the President, and he is DIRECTLY responsible for the economic impact of this policy.

Starting to regret those naps in Political Science and American Government now, aren't you? I know, most people find it boring, but I like knowing how my country ACTUALLY works, rather than just relying on a professor of economics' opinion on politics.


so much wrong...so little time...

ah well. if nothing else, I find your ignorance refreshing.
 
2012-04-29 11:02:49 PM

Guntram Shatterhand: With every sad attempt at mudslinging, the Republicans show how utterly lost they are.


Short version: The GOP continues to rocket into a suicide spiral as it's base ages and demographics spell its doom. Republicans have done nothing but alienate women, minorities and young voters and the Democrats will win by default as the GOP's core voters die off and aren't replaced. Enjoy your Kamikaze mission boys because you can only do that trick once...
 
2012-04-29 11:04:03 PM
What liberals?
 
2012-04-29 11:09:42 PM

gameshowhost: T-Servo: Exactly, so we can all agree on campaign fundraising limits and public financing?

If no, then stop complaining.

^

/don't whine about someone operating within the parameters that ~you~ created, conservafarktards



Remember when they nominated a man who was a champion of campaign finance reform? Yeah, neither do they.
 
2012-04-29 11:12:06 PM

MikeMc: Short version: The GOP continues to rocket into a suicide spiral as it's base ages and demographics spell its doom. Republicans have done nothing but alienate women, minorities and young voters and the Democrats will win by default as the GOP's core voters die off and aren't replaced. Enjoy your Kamikaze mission boys because you can only do that trick once...


-- Quote from 1987
 
2012-04-29 11:12:41 PM

Weaver95: so much wrong...so little time...

ah well. if nothing else, I find your ignorance refreshing.


Google "Budget and Accounting Act of 1921." Then Google "Executive Order", which has a direct effect on policy.

Who appoints Federal judges? Who decides what resources get allocated to investigate what crimes?

As far as the Federal Reserve Board and the SEC, who the fark do you think appoints the members? The Supreme Court? (Yes, I know they must also be approved by Congress, but it's not like Congress can pick their own candidate).

Yes, the president is not as directly responsible for a good portion of the economy as some of the people he appoints (or his predecessor appointed), but to say

Weaver95: the President has no direct control on the economy...that's not his job


... is simply not correct.

Unfortunately, I find YOUR ignorance worrisome, mainly because it is shared by so many ignorant of the way the Federal Government works.. And you have the audacity to act as if I were the ignorant one! It's like you're taking a playbook right out of Fox News!
 
2012-04-29 11:14:18 PM
If Republicans introduced a policy that allowed them to knife in the face any person who disagreed with, I would be against that policy. I abhor political violence and prefer issues to be resolved by dialogue.

However, if a Republican tried to knife me in the face, then yeah, I'd knife him back. It's not hypocrisy, it's a perfectly reasonable reaction.
 
2012-04-29 11:14:31 PM
maybe it's because he has billionaires throwing 40 million at his opponent
 
2012-04-29 11:17:44 PM
net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread
 
2012-04-29 11:18:21 PM
lol @ the point of the headline being proved over and over again.

When y'all gonna stop craving that troll bait?
 
2012-04-29 11:20:27 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: MikeMc: Short version: The GOP continues to rocket into a suicide spiral as it's base ages and demographics spell its doom. Republicans have done nothing but alienate women, minorities and young voters and the Democrats will win by default as the GOP's core voters die off and aren't replaced. Enjoy your Kamikaze mission boys because you can only do that trick once...

-- Quote from 1987


Coulda swore I just typed that...
 
2012-04-29 11:21:23 PM
He sure does. And in spite of this, he is still a much, much, much more preferable choice than Mitt Romney.
 
2012-04-29 11:21:53 PM

falcon176: maybe it's because he has billionaires throwing 40 million at his opponent


Charles gave $40 million. His brother David only gave $20 million, the cheap bastard.
 
2012-04-29 11:21:53 PM

Bhasayate: net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread net enough derp and hurpaderp and libderp in this thread


You spoke too soon.

phygz: lol @ the point of the headline being proved over and over again.

When y'all gonna stop craving that troll bait?

 
2012-04-29 11:22:16 PM

Weaver95: tenpoundsofcheese: Weaver95: tenpoundsofcheese: i rather having him out fundraising and playing golf than him trying to "improve" the economy.

you do know that the President really can't affect the economy directly in any significant manner, right? that's the job of the Federal Reserve.

got it.
I remember you kept defending Bush when people criticized the state of the economy during his administration.

At least you are consistent.

actually, I managed to pass all my econ courses. the President has no direct control on the economy...that's not his job.



oh look, you are lying again.
can you at least pretend that you defend what you wrote instead of lying about it?
 
2012-04-29 11:22:56 PM

MikeMc: Lenny_da_Hog: MikeMc: Short version: The GOP continues to rocket into a suicide spiral as it's base ages and demographics spell its doom. Republicans have done nothing but alienate women, minorities and young voters and the Democrats will win by default as the GOP's core voters die off and aren't replaced. Enjoy your Kamikaze mission boys because you can only do that trick once...

-- Quote from 1987

Coulda swore I just typed that...


Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
 
2012-04-29 11:23:16 PM

phygz: lol @ the point of the headline being proved over and over again.

When y'all gonna stop craving that troll bait?


So vote Philviro.
 
2012-04-29 11:23:41 PM

ox45tallboy: Ummm... since 1921, the President prepares the freakin' budget of the WHOLE FARKING UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, and then it gets hacked to pieces by Congress. Also, the DOJ, DHS (especially ICE - tell me customs enforcement of smuggling and especially immigration does not have a DIRECT effect on the economy), the FBI (investigation)... as part of the Executive branch, ALL of these are directly controlled by policy set by the President, and he is DIRECTLY responsible for the economic impact of this policy.


You answered your own question regarding the budget right there in bold. As for the DOJ, DHS, and FBI, I can see where the fabric is wearing out from all that stretching you're doing (not counting the small impact of smuggling and larger-yet-still-rather-miniscule impact of immigration. There, it's not quite so bad.) You're gonna have to be a bit more specific here.
 
2012-04-29 11:26:31 PM
All ya'll remind me of this guy:

images.buddytv.com

Keep herping and derping and libderping, herpderpers.
 
2012-04-29 11:27:09 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.


So...you're saying the Republicans are going the way of the Whigs? Or is it the Tories? Either way they're toast. All the money in the world can't turn the clock back to 1956...
 
2012-04-29 11:28:37 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Weaver95: tenpoundsofcheese: Weaver95: tenpoundsofcheese: i rather having him out fundraising and playing golf than him trying to "improve" the economy.

you do know that the President really can't affect the economy directly in any significant manner, right? that's the job of the Federal Reserve.

got it.
I remember you kept defending Bush when people criticized the state of the economy during his administration.

At least you are consistent.

actually, I managed to pass all my econ courses. the President has no direct control on the economy...that's not his job.



oh look, you are lying again.
can you at least pretend that you defend what you wrote instead of lying about it?


If you are insinuating that Weaver is a Bush fanatic and a proud member of the GOP, then I would like some of what you are smoking. I bet its crack.

/People can change their mind when presented with new evidence. Al Gore was against abortion before he was for it.
 
2012-04-29 11:29:04 PM
Obama will destroy Romney. Republicans need to look at 2016 when Hillary destroys them then.
 
2012-04-29 11:30:01 PM

MikeMc: Lenny_da_Hog: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

So...you're saying the Republicans are going the way of the Whigs? Or is it the Tories? Either way they're toast. All the money in the world can't turn the clock back to 1956...


You must be young.

Democrats were saying the exact same thing about the Christian Coalition in the 80s. They're all old, we're just waiting for them to die off, they're in a death spiral, nothing will save them....

And yet here they are, doing the same thing.
 
2012-04-29 11:30:13 PM

ox45tallboy: Weaver95: so much wrong...so little time...

ah well. if nothing else, I find your ignorance refreshing.

Google "Budget and Accounting Act of 1921." Then Google "Executive Order", which has a direct effect on policy.

Who appoints Federal judges? Who decides what resources get allocated to investigate what crimes?

As far as the Federal Reserve Board and the SEC, who the fark do you think appoints the members? The Supreme Court? (Yes, I know they must also be approved by Congress, but it's not like Congress can pick their own candidate).

Yes, the president is not as directly responsible for a good portion of the economy as some of the people he appoints (or his predecessor appointed), but to say

Weaver95: the President has no direct control on the economy...that's not his job

... is simply not correct.

Unfortunately, I find YOUR ignorance worrisome, mainly because it is shared by so many ignorant of the way the Federal Government works.. And you have the audacity to act as if I were the ignorant one! It's like you're taking a playbook right out of Fox News!


Once again (though I submitted that after you did this) congress rips apart the budget, rendering your point on the Budget Act rather moot. And considering that you yourself admit that the predecessor(s) appoint a good bit of the people in charge of certain positions, what, outside of some freak mass die-off opening up a bunch of positions affecting economic policy, can a president really DO to affect the economy?
 
2012-04-29 11:36:29 PM

Lionel Mandrake: I can't wait until Obama is reelected. The butthurt from morans like you will be epic.


Oh dear. I am saving this for Nov. 12th. We are going to laugh like old friends at this.
 
2012-04-29 11:37:05 PM

Weaver95: in fact, much of what you mentioned (save declaring war) isn't the President's job either


Wat
 
2012-04-29 11:40:52 PM

cman: tenpoundsofcheese: Weaver95: tenpoundsofcheese: Weaver95: tenpoundsofcheese: i rather having him out fundraising and playing golf than him trying to "improve" the economy.

you do know that the President really can't affect the economy directly in any significant manner, right? that's the job of the Federal Reserve.

got it.
I remember you kept defending Bush when people criticized the state of the economy during his administration.

At least you are consistent.

actually, I managed to pass all my econ courses. the President has no direct control on the economy...that's not his job.



oh look, you are lying again.
can you at least pretend that you defend what you wrote instead of lying about it?

If you are insinuating that Weaver is a Bush fanatic and a proud member of the GOP, then I would like some of what you are smoking. I bet its crack.

.


nope. just calling him out on being a hypocrite.
claims that the President can't really affect the economy - so I was assuming that he must have also defended Bush when people criticized the economy (sarcasm).

then he tried to change the goalposts and talked about "controlling" vs. "affecting" the economy.
 
2012-04-29 11:45:57 PM

friday13: Once again (though I submitted that after you did this) congress rips apart the budget, rendering your point on the Budget Act rather moot. And considering that you yourself admit that the predecessor(s) appoint a good bit of the people in charge of certain positions, what, outside of some freak mass die-off opening up a bunch of positions affecting economic policy, can a president really DO to affect the economy?


The number one thing he can (and does) do is POLICY. His policies decide what laws get enforced, and which are given a pass. For example, Obama is cracking down on illegal immigration, having deported more people in the same amount of time (especially considering the post 9-11 mentality of Bush's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years in office). This DIRECTLY affects the economy.

An example of current policy affecting the law (I know this has no effect on the economy, but you can see what I mean) is that he has told the DOJ not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which means he will allow it to be struck down as soon as the first judge decides to do so.

You do realize that everyone from the head of the CIA to the Director of Homeland Security to all 50 Attorneys General (prosecutors in Federal Court) serve at the President's pleasure, meaning he can fire any of them at any time? Do you not think they take orders from the boss? Do you not realize how much Presidential Policy affects everything in the Executive Branch of government?

You are correct, it is not spelled out in the Constitution "The President shall be in Direct Control of the Economy." But to ignore the fact that the President does have near COMPLETE control over governmental policy by being the guy that hires and fires the heads of nearly every Federal agency is completely disingenuous. Like it or not, these things directly affect the economy, some more directly than others.

As far as the fact that Congress often rips the President's budget to shreds, remember that he also has veto power over it.
 
2012-04-29 11:47:28 PM

notShryke: Lionel Mandrake: I can't wait until Obama is reelected. The butthurt from morans like you will be epic.

Oh dear. I am saving this for Nov. 12th. We are going to laugh like old friends at this.


How is anybody going to know you? You will have a handle I will have chosen.
 
2012-04-29 11:49:13 PM

ox45tallboy: friday13: Once again (though I submitted that after you did this) congress rips apart the budget, rendering your point on the Budget Act rather moot. And considering that you yourself admit that the predecessor(s) appoint a good bit of the people in charge of certain positions, what, outside of some freak mass die-off opening up a bunch of positions affecting economic policy, can a president really DO to affect the economy?

The number one thing he can (and does) do is POLICY. His policies decide what laws get enforced, and which are given a pass. For example, Obama is cracking down on illegal immigration, having deported more people in the same amount of time (especially considering the post 9-11 mentality of Bush's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years in office). This DIRECTLY affects the economy.

An example of current policy affecting the law (I know this has no effect on the economy, but you can see what I mean) is that he has told the DOJ not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which means he will allow it to be struck down as soon as the first judge decides to do so.

You do realize that everyone from the head of the CIA to the Director of Homeland Security to all 50 Attorneys General (prosecutors in Federal Court) serve at the President's pleasure, meaning he can fire any of them at any time? Do you not think they take orders from the boss? Do you not realize how much Presidential Policy affects everything in the Executive Branch of government?

You are correct, it is not spelled out in the Constitution "The President shall be in Direct Control of the Economy." But to ignore the fact that the President does have near COMPLETE control over governmental policy by being the guy that hires and fires the heads of nearly every Federal agency is completely disingenuous. Like it or not, these things directly affect the economy, some more directly than others.

As far as the fact that Congress often rips the President's budget to shreds, remember that he also has veto power o ...


You have never actually said anything about what the President can do to directly affect the US economy.
 
2012-04-29 11:49:49 PM

ox45tallboy: friday13: Once again (though I submitted that after you did this) congress rips apart the budget, rendering your point on the Budget Act rather moot. And considering that you yourself admit that the predecessor(s) appoint a good bit of the people in charge of certain positions, what, outside of some freak mass die-off opening up a bunch of positions affecting economic policy, can a president really DO to affect the economy?

The number one thing he can (and does) do is POLICY. His policies decide what laws get enforced, and which are given a pass. For example, Obama is cracking down on illegal immigration, having deported more people in the same amount of time (especially considering the post 9-11 mentality of Bush's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years in office). This DIRECTLY affects the economy.

An example of current policy affecting the law (I know this has no effect on the economy, but you can see what I mean) is that he has told the DOJ not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which means he will allow it to be struck down as soon as the first judge decides to do so.

You do realize that everyone from the head of the CIA to the Director of Homeland Security to all 50 Attorneys General (prosecutors in Federal Court) serve at the President's pleasure, meaning he can fire any of them at any time? Do you not think they take orders from the boss? Do you not realize how much Presidential Policy affects everything in the Executive Branch of government?

You are correct, it is not spelled out in the Constitution "The President shall be in Direct Control of the Economy." But to ignore the fact that the President does have near COMPLETE control over governmental policy by being the guy that hires and fires the heads of nearly every Federal agency is completely disingenuous. Like it or not, these things directly affect the economy, some more directly than others.

As far as the fact that Congress often rips the President's budget to shreds, remember that he also has veto power o ...


This is roughly 50% correct. You've omitted the President's vast influence on foreign trade and treaties. Critical.
 
2012-04-29 11:50:29 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: MikeMc: Lenny_da_Hog: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

So...you're saying the Republicans are going the way of the Whigs? Or is it the Tories? Either way they're toast. All the money in the world can't turn the clock back to 1956...

You must be young.

Democrats were saying the exact same thing about the Christian Coalition in the 80s. They're all old, we're just waiting for them to die off, they're in a death spiral, nothing will save them....

And yet here they are, doing the same thing.


Actually I'm in my 40's. Where is the Christian Coalition today? No longer the kingmakers they once were. In fact the Christian Coalition is broke and bereft of both political clout and donors. Pat Robertson is deep into senile dementia, Ralph Reed and the CC were tied to Jack Abramoff when they took payoffs to lobby against certain gambling interests. So I guess the Christian Coalition is an accurate barometer of American Conservatism. Elderly, senile and corrupt to the core.
 
2012-04-29 11:51:45 PM

notShryke: This is roughly 50% correct. You've omitted the President's vast influence on foreign trade and treaties. Critical.


You mean the ones that the Senate has to ratify?
 
2012-04-29 11:54:34 PM

MikeMc: Actually I'm in my 40's. Where is the Christian Coalition today? No longer the kingmakers they once were. In fact the Christian Coalition is broke and bereft of both political clout and donors. Pat Robertson is deep into senile dementia, Ralph Reed and the CC were tied to Jack Abramoff when they took payoffs to lobby against certain gambling interests. So I guess the Christian Coalition is an accurate barometer of American Conservatism. Elderly, senile and corrupt to the core.


They were rebranded in 2009 by Fox News. Didn't you notice?

It's all the same demographic as Reed's CC, without being *centered* on religion this time so Rednecks can feel less guilt while doing their master's bidding.
 
2012-04-29 11:56:43 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: cman: tenpoundsofcheese: Weaver95: tenpoundsofcheese: Weaver95: tenpoundsofcheese: i rather having him out fundraising and playing golf than him trying to "improve" the economy.

you do know that the President really can't affect the economy directly in any significant manner, right? that's the job of the Federal Reserve.

got it.
I remember you kept defending Bush when people criticized the state of the economy during his administration.

At least you are consistent.

actually, I managed to pass all my econ courses. the President has no direct control on the economy...that's not his job.



oh look, you are lying again.
can you at least pretend that you defend what you wrote instead of lying about it?

If you are insinuating that Weaver is a Bush fanatic and a proud member of the GOP, then I would like some of what you are smoking. I bet its crack.

.

nope. just calling him out on being a hypocrite.
claims that the President can't really affect the economy - so I was assuming that he must have also defended Bush when people criticized the economy (sarcasm).

then he tried to change the goalposts and talked about "controlling" vs. "affecting" the economy.


Actually he did defend your glorious king George over that. He spent most of your glorious king's first term as a staunch defender of him. But don't let things like that change you from being a hateful liar.
 
2012-04-30 12:02:37 AM

Weaver95: cman: Wow, the Obamunists are a bit slow tonight.

Usually by now this thread would be at 50+ and have a downvote of 10

they're all off having gay sex abortions while smoking dope and watching Glee reruns on netflix.


That's a bit harsh don't you think? The gay sex abortions while smoking dope is ok but accusing anyone of watching Glee is downright nasty.
 
2012-04-30 12:04:21 AM

ghare: EnviroDude: Bush's fault


//sure are a lot of Obama lovers getting their feelings hurt today making nasty at subbers

America will be paying for the Bush Obama presidency for a generation. It was really that bad, and you don't have to be a liberal all you need is any sense to understand that.

 
2012-04-30 12:05:29 AM

cameroncrazy1984: You have never actually said anything about what the President can do to directly affect the US economy.


Hello? Immigration policy? Investigations of financial impropriety?

You do realize that some cable news stations run a farking DOW ticker in the corner of the screen when the President gives a speech when the markets are open.

Sigh.

Link
 
2012-04-30 12:06:06 AM

CujoQuarrel: ghare: EnviroDude: Bush's fault


//sure are a lot of Obama lovers getting their feelings hurt today making nasty at subbers

America will be paying for the Bush Obama presidency for a generation. It was really that bad, and you don't have to be a liberal all you need is any sense to understand that.


Wow. That was clever.
 
2012-04-30 12:06:47 AM

notShryke: This is roughly 50% correct. You've omitted the President's vast influence on foreign trade and treaties. Critical.


That's a good point.
 
2012-04-30 12:07:06 AM

ox45tallboy: cameroncrazy1984: You have never actually said anything about what the President can do to directly affect the US economy.

Hello? Immigration policy? Investigations of financial impropriety?

You do realize that some cable news stations run a farking DOW ticker in the corner of the screen when the President gives a speech when the markets are open.

Sigh.

Link


I think your pillow is inviting you to sleep right now. Seriously, stop.
 
2012-04-30 12:08:33 AM

ox45tallboy: Hello? Immigration policy? Investigations of financial impropriety?


This is what you're going with? Immigration policy as a direct control over the entire US economy?
 
2012-04-30 12:13:17 AM
Obama has actually been worse than Bush in things I would have never even imagined. Whoever is pulling the strings behind his presidency really killed his whole concept of hope and change. Just sayin.
 
2012-04-30 12:14:01 AM

TheJoe03: Obama has actually been worse than Bush in things I would have never even imagined. Whoever is pulling the strings behind his presidency really killed his whole concept of hope and change. Just sayin.


You are just saying "I am retarded".
 
2012-04-30 12:14:57 AM

TheJoe03: Obama has actually been worse than Bush in things I would have never even imagined. Whoever is pulling the strings behind his presidency really killed his whole concept of hope and change. Just sayin.


It's the reptilians, isn't it!
 
2012-04-30 12:15:25 AM

TheJoe03: Obama has actually been worse than Bush in things I would have never even imagined. Whoever is pulling the strings behind his presidency really killed his whole concept of hope and change. Just sayin.


NOT THINGS!

What's next? STUFF?
 
Displayed 50 of 341 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report