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.

(CNN)   Applying GOP logic to Obama "taking credit away from the SEALS", how dare Eisenhower take credit for D-Day, Patton for winning the Battle of the Bulge, and that pesky MacArthur for taking back the Philippines   (edition.cnn.com) divider line 87
    More: Asinine, obama, Battle of the Bulge, human beings, MacArthur, GOP, D-Day, Eisenhower, Osama bin Laden  
•       •       •

2744 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Apr 2012 at 9:51 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-04-30 11:39:58 AM
5 votes:
Is there a website that just has all of the Republican Talking Points of the day? Am I missing somewhere I should go? Does Frank Luntz or Karl Rove have a site out there somewhere?

This is the same tired old crap from the right. On the anniversary of killing Enemy Number One, after having been unable to catch him for almost a DECADE, the Republicans obviously do not want to give Obama credit for very carefully taking the intelligence he was given and then issuing an order to have Bin Laden killed.

This is of course the goal of the right. Attack the positives of the Obama administration. Blame him for all the negatives, which they are largely responsible for.

Look, I think Republicans have some good ideas. Not many of them, but some good ones. Lowering income taxes is not one of them. Social conservative policies are not one of them. Smaller government? Yes. States rights? Yes - to a degree. Dismantling important government INTERSTATE COMMERCE programs like the FDA and EPA? No. Fixing immigration? Yes, but not in the way they want to. Health care? They have no ideas. I've yet to see a real answer. One could make an argument about Social Security. Their argument wouldn't fly with me, though, because I've seen how poorly most Americans manage their money. Forcing people to have a nest egg at retirement is not the worst idea ever.

OK so basically they have one good idea, smaller government. Unfortunately they don't know what this means.

Here's a point to make on the left: Republicans have done ZERO, absolutely ZERO. Nothing. They've done NOTHING. The party of NOTHING. I guess you could argue that taking us back to the 18th century and being strict Constitutionalists would bring back the good old days of American growth, but let me let you in on a little secret: The world has changed since 1787.

Some really toxic chemicals have been discovered since 1780. And drilling for oil didn't exist in the 1780s. And you shouldn't just let Bob the Fracker pour those chemicals into your water table in his thirst for oil. But Mr. Republican would remind me, that's a State issue. Which is great, until I point out that weather patterns in my state push air east, so when some douchebag in Tennessee pollutes the air on the east border of the state it flows directly into North Carolina where I live. And rivers and water tables don't stop at the state border.

So yeah, we need the EPA.

And most people aren't farmers anymore like they were in 1780, so when I buy meat from a grocery store that has been shipped from Kansas, damn right I want to know it's not going to kill me, and that it was properly cut and that the burger meat I just bought isn't half cow feces and bone. Because when I get sick and die not knowing what killed me, I'm not going to know who poisoned me. And again, not a state's issue. And it's nice to know that when I do get sick, there is a Center for Disease Control that could potentially track that data and find out what was poisoning me.

And when I go buy stocks for huge global companies, which weren't in great supply in the 18th century, I would like to know that my broker or my company isn't putting me over a barrel or releasing false information, which will not help me sue that company when the company goes out of business

We need the SEC.

Do you begin to see a pattern here? There is a reason the Constitution contains provisions for legislating.

This is why every time I see something like this I'm reminded of Republican Talking Points, their orgy of hate, and how the design is really just to take all credit away from an administration that is responding to the problems of today, and not to the problems of 1780, when women couldn't vote and black people were property. Never mind the fact that the legislative branch, with its Tea Party freshman, is completely hopeless.
2012-04-30 10:21:30 AM
5 votes:
So let me get this right. Obama is responsible for the actions of individual servicemen when they are picking up prostitutes and he should be criticized for that. But when he orders the intelligence community to re-focus on Bin Laden, then orders the operation that kills him, he is not responsible for that and deserves no credit.
2012-04-30 08:42:27 AM
5 votes:
www.joblessandless.com
Unlike other Presidents running on the accomplishments of the military during their term, Obama actually did it.
2012-04-30 10:13:14 AM
4 votes:
Also, by this logic Bin Laden is not responsible for 9/11. All he did was green light an obvious decision.
2012-04-30 10:05:35 AM
4 votes:
An unannounced raid violating the sovereignty of a nominal ally with no guarantee of success and significant risk of heavy political fallout isn't exactly a no-brainer decision and I recall reading that some close advisers argued against him greenlighting it as the intel stood. The killing of Bin Laden is a powerful showpiece accomplishment of his administration, especially in that it requires no real political acumen or nuance for the average voter to appreciate. Yes, running political advertising is by definition "playing politics." Thanks CNN.
2012-04-30 09:12:27 AM
4 votes:

Il Douchey: GAT_00: And who directed the intel agencies to go find him, and then sent them off to get him?

Hey GAT, I haven't come here to bury Barry, I come to praise him. His nod wasn't just some perfunctory detail to cap off a multi year effort. No sir. Without the complex strategery, fortitude and personal bravery of Obama, our military would be a shambles of confusion. Nobody else could have figured out the proper decision to make. His position amongst the great military leaders like Washington and Churchill is assured. He did it all my friends, he did it all.


Well you see, Bush didn't care about getting the guy who okayed the biggest terrorist attack in history, he was much more interested in getting 5,000 Americans killed in Iraq so he could strut around on an aircraft carrier and call himself a "war president" on TV.

Do the souls of Americans Bush sent to die for no reason haunt him at night?
2012-04-30 09:06:45 AM
4 votes:

Il Douchey: GAT_00: And who directed the intel agencies to go find him, and then sent them off to get him?

Hey GAT, I haven't come here to bury Barry, I come to praise him. His nod wasn't just some perfunctory detail to cap off a multi year effort. No sir. Without the complex strategery, fortitude and personal bravery of Obama, our military would be a shambles of confusion. Nobody else could have figured out the proper decision to make. His position amongst the great military leaders like Washington and Churchill is assured. He did it all my friends, he did it all.


Mock it through exaggeration all you want. Obama accomplished in three years what Bush failed to accomplish in eight.

But this is stupid. It's stupid to give him all the credit and it's stupid to deny him any credit.
2012-04-30 11:41:41 AM
3 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Obama gets credit for ordering the hit. Any American who was President would have done the same.


Really? Because during the 2008 campaign, McCain firmly and repeatedly stated that he would not go under bin Laden in those circumstances.
2012-04-30 11:19:39 AM
3 votes:

Noam Chimpsky: I think it was more than 50%, but would the odds get better or worse after a good night's sleep? I don't see any way the odds could improve, but Osama could have slipped away while Obama was drooling on his pillow.

If Obama was so concerned about the lives of the SEALs, he wouldn't have had them hang around there for an hour when it takes 30 seconds to find Osama and put a bullet in his head. They could have been in and out of there with a living bin laden in 2 minutes. And then we could have tortured the piss out of him and killed him later


Oh, you were there? You knew the situation? Are you a member of the military, or a SEAL? How do you know how long it would take to kill bin Laden? Do you know the layout of the compound? Do you know how many people were in it? How many were armed?

If you knew all of this before Obama did, and you didn't tell anyone, you need to be arrested and charged with treason.
2012-04-30 10:10:23 AM
3 votes:
Wouldn't the analogy here be crediting Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not the respective military commanders? Further, the examples aren't even consistent: why credit Patton for the Battle of the Bulge but not Omar Bradley for D-Day? Both were under the command of Eisenhower at the time.
2012-04-30 10:06:58 AM
3 votes:
We're going to keep saying that you are bad with foreign policy, soft on terror, and bad for national defense....and, if you bring up one of the single biggest accomplishments in the entirety of the war on Terror (something that we ignored and swept under the rug), well...that's just not fair and you are politicizing the issue.
2012-04-30 09:57:14 AM
3 votes:
Gillespie, a former aide to former President George W. Bush and former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said...Obama has "become one of the most divisive presidents in American history."

Thanks to wingnuts and teabaggers making shiat up about him.
2012-04-30 09:13:55 AM
3 votes:
yeah, but Eisenhower, Patton, and MacArthur weren't blah people.
2012-04-30 09:10:29 AM
3 votes:

Jake Havechek: I don't know where he is. I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.

-- George W. Bush


Instead, we wound up with a war in Iraq.

Folks are going to be getting more and more desperate on this issue, because diffusing this issue has got to be done. Accomplishments as a Governor is all that Romney has, and considering how much energy was spent in trying to keep health care reform from passing, against a plan similar to the one that Romney himself took credit for on a smaller scale, it smells of desperation to try to cast a pall on a big positive on the President's side. They HAVE to spin this away from the President, or they are going to have to admit that their presumptive candidate has got little but a failed Presidential bid last go around, and a Governorship that saw an awful lot of compromise that they just can't stomach in the current climate.
2012-04-30 08:46:29 AM
3 votes:

PC LOAD LETTER: Ummm...they were military commanders.


Unclear on that whole "Commander in Chief" thing, are you?

/ he made the tough call, he gets the credit
2012-04-30 08:16:06 AM
3 votes:
I don't know where he is. I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.

-- George W. Bush
2012-04-30 04:40:09 PM
2 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Yeah. Only farking morons would pay for their children's college and healthcare issues when they could be taking that money and playing day-trader on e-Trade like any rational person would. And saving for retirement? That's for morons too!


Someone who voluntarily put themselves in a situation where they have decided to live in a expensive are of the county and tried to raise five kids in it without having the income to be able to both care for an educate their children and save for retirement would indeed be a moron.

Having multiple children is a choice. Living in one of the most desirable cities in America is a choice.

I am really enjoying the cognitive dissonance of conservative thought in this thread. The mindset that would admonish a poor person for making a choice like having a child they can't really afford sees no problem in taking pity on and wanting tax breaks for a rich person who may be living beyond their means because they have chosen to live in a high cost area and raise children.
2012-04-30 04:30:39 PM
2 votes:

skullkrusher: yeah, you live in an expensive location. You pay for it. You probably earn more for the exact same job as someone who lives in a less expensive location and wind up with comparable buying power. Yet you pay more of that real buying power in federal taxes than your analog in a cheaper area.


You entire argument is based on the notion that "buying power" is somehow a totally separate thing from the decision to live in an expensive area. You have chosen to expend your "buying power" to live in an upscale area of one of the most expensive cities in America.

I have to pay more money to the federal government as my fee for living in NY?

Huh? You don't pay one cent more to the federal government than someone living in a different city. In real dollars the taxes are the same. I can only imagine you mean "more money" with money meaning this silly notion of "buying power" you are trying to push that does not include what one chooses to spend on location.

That sounds pretty stupid. I pay state and city taxes for that.

Your city and state taxes have nothing to do with this. Market conditions have made NYC very expensive. You have chosen to spend your income to live in NYC (and in an expensive area of NYC). The high cost of living in an area is not a tax. It's a market reality. Nobody forces you to choose to live in an expensive area.

actually, the opposite. I'd prefer not to subsidize the low cost of living areas through our unfair national benchmarks. is that too much to ask? It's not preferential treatment at all. Everyone would have their taxes indexed to CoL. Not just people in higher CoL areas.

Amazing. That's not the opposite, that's exactly what I said. You want your choice to live in an expensive city subsidized at the expense of people who live in less expensive areas. You want people with a lower cost of living to pay more in taxes so you can pay less due to your choice to live in an area with a higher cost of living. The fact that you seem to be in denial of this doesn't change the fact.
2012-04-30 11:24:25 AM
2 votes:
Gillespie, a former aide to former President George W. Bush and former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said utilizing the raid for political purposes is one of the reasons Obama has "become one of the most divisive presidents in American history."

Ironic that a BUSH aide would accuse ANY other President of being "divisive".

Fark these people, Obama's got to hear day in and day out 'What did he do for America?', and then when he SHOWS what he did for America, he has to listen to a bunch of "I can't believe he turned this into a political campaign ad'... Farked no matter WHAT he does, it seems. Jesus Himself could come down and ask Obama if it was possible for Jesus and God to have lunch with Obama one day, and the Right would suddenly decide that they aren't too keen on this whole 'Christianity' thing after all, as long as their position ran counter to Obama.

You farksticks on the Right need to grow up and start acting in the COUNTRY'S best interests, rather than your own.

At least Obama didn't throw on a flight suit, pretend to fly and then give a speech in front of a 'Mission Accomplished' banner YEARS before that Mission was ever Accomplished.
2012-04-30 11:23:37 AM
2 votes:
For years red state tough guys have been bragging that if there was a President with the balls to put them within range of Bin Laden taking out the Al Qaeda leader would be a snap. Bush had seven years to do it and never got more than a two-week old whiff in Tora Bora. Obama takes the challenge and not only is Bin Laden dead but he does it smart and took Osama's rolodex and notes.

Obama fulfilled the deepest, horniest dreams of the right wing and they'll never forgive him for it. Because for a brief moment they got a boner for a black guy.
2012-04-30 11:01:03 AM
2 votes:
I am a Republican. I disagree with President Obama on numerous issues.

On Bin Laden's death, I support Obama 100%. Obama made a gutsy call to send troops into Pakistan without Pakistan's permission, without knowing 100% that Bin Laden was at that compound. If the mission had failed, if Bin Laden had not actually been there, the fallout could have been disastrous and the end of Obama's career.

I'm not sure many other politicians could have made that call. But Obama did.

And I'm glad that utter bastard Bin Laden got riddled with bullets and dumped in the sea.

The Republicans started the fight back when this occurred, complaining that we shouldn't have killed the guy. Really? Then what have we been doing in Afghanistan these last 11 years, trying to NOT kill Bin Laden? I think that's when it became pretty damn obvious the GOP is nothing but noise and opposition to whatever Obama does, even if the end result is something that's pretty damn awesome.

There is no reason the GOP politicized this. None. They should have given the President a thumbs-up for it instead of sticking their thumbs up their collective asses.
2012-04-30 11:00:53 AM
2 votes:
I expect the right to "forget" about this, but has everyone on the left also forgotten that Obama campaigned on this exact scenario (going into Pakistan to get bin Laden) and McCain campaigned against it, calling it "naive"?

Kind of pokes a hole in the "anybody would've gotten him" canard.
2012-04-30 10:46:41 AM
2 votes:
He would have gotten credit for it if he farked it up
2012-04-30 10:30:01 AM
2 votes:
GOP "logic" -

CEO's of companies are entitled to their promised bonuses because their critical decision making and acceptance of responsibility require fortitude that their rank and file are unaware of. The average factory worker may be the direct cause of increased production and increased profits, but it is the executives at the top who direct the rank and file and bring a company to prosperity.

What? The Commander In Socialism told the SEALS what to do? Who cares? Always support the rank and file of the military!
2012-04-30 10:29:19 AM
2 votes:
Let's put this to bed. According to various newspaper accounts

Obama chose to do a raid instead of a drone strike.

Obama chose not to inform Pakistan about the raid.

Obama's insistence on a larger raiding force is what let them escape when one of the helicopters failed.

It's not really fair to say what Romney would have done in such a situation but killing Bin Laden was far more than just saying "Yep. Do it."
2012-04-30 10:25:35 AM
2 votes:
Number of Bin Ladens killed during the Bush Administration in 6 years: 0
Number of Bin Ladens killed during the Obama Administration in 3 years: 1

Number of tyrannical regimes toppled with 0 loss of American lives during Bush Administration: 0
Number of tyrannical regimes toppled with 0 loss of American lives during Obama Administration: 1

Number of hostage-taking pirates shot in the head during Bush Administration: 0
Number of hostage-taking pirates shot in the head during Obama Administration: 3

any questions?
2012-04-30 10:21:02 AM
2 votes:

jigger: So, Obama is a general now?


Actually, he's a step above them.
2012-04-30 10:12:57 AM
2 votes:
images1.dailykos.com

Both seem to piss off republicans.
2012-04-30 09:58:13 AM
2 votes:
Shove it, GOP. If Bush had got Bin Laden during his term you know damn well there would have been a bravado filled victory speech and the dittoheads at Fox News would have ate it up. Farking classless, disingenuous scum, all of them.
2012-04-30 09:55:46 AM
2 votes:
Let me guess... The soppy vaginas in the GOP are outraged about Democrats mentioning the death of Osama Bin Ladin on the anniversary and reminding voters who was in office when it happened?

1.bp.blogspot.com
"It's not fair!!!! Killing foreigners is our thing!!!"
2012-04-30 09:31:16 AM
2 votes:
Team Obama released a video on Friday, partially narrated by former President Bill Clinton, that praised the president's decision to order the killing of the al Qaeda chief one year from Tuesday and questioned whether Romney would have made the same choice.

i don't know if it's "taking credit away from the SEALS," but questioning whether romney would have made the same choice is cheap politics.
2012-04-30 08:12:55 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin:
My only point is that annual taxable income alone is an insufficient metric for determing who can absorb additional taxes without negative consequences. Particularly when that income is overwhelmingly salary based (as opposed to financial investments, stocks, real estate revenue, etc.) and when ther emay be other sunstantial expenses such as special needs medical care. multiple children, elderly parents and what not. When those with the income to handle these things without taxpayer money are able to do so, it is a benefit to all of us, and increasing their tax burden to the point that they ar enot able to do so runs counter to what I understand our objectives to be.


Taxable income as currently defined by the US tax Code? I heartily agree with this - I was a large case IRS auditor for the IRS for many years. To see tax returns from folks (obviously I can't name names) of astonishing wealth present quite legally a negative taxable income is to understand the great irony of the "1% pay almost all the taxes" chimera. As noted earlier, your 250k wage earner ALREADY gets a massive built in tax cut. You neither address this in your defense of the expense-ridden, nor, as also noted above, provide a better metric, or fully address why you find the 250k mark so galling, but rather prattle on with your fact-free mumblings about the dratted unfairness of it all, because only "some" people who make in the top few percent of wage income are actually "rich" as opposed to "comfortably well off".
2012-04-30 07:18:03 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Thrag: I really wish you would just make up your mind and settle on some definitions and actually define this tax system that you desire that takes into account whatever you will decide to define as "real buying power" next.

Ummm... Thrag... Are we agreeing on something?

it feels weird.


I actually don't think it's the first time either. I know we've disagreed in the past over things and as is the custom here those disagreements likely came with a heaping side order of snark, but I have the sense we're both more pragmatically inclined than ideologically driven. While I may come off on fark as a flaming liberal, that's simply by nature of the fact that I usually only reply to things that make me laugh, facepalm, or both, and in this tab the lulz are often provided in greater volumes by the right side of the political divide (at least since czarangelus left). I'm a Rockefeller Republican at heart. I think it's a shame that when it comes to topics like a social safety net the arguments are ideological ones about whether it should exist at all rather than practical ones based around how to accomplish the goals efficiently without accidentally creating incentives to abuse the system.

Oh, and my mindset comment above was really just an aside and not directed at your post. I should have separated it from my reply.
2012-04-30 06:55:24 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Paul Baumer: Outside of a coincidental one time tax rate change occurring at 250k, what evidence do you have that a "250k is rich!" campaign is being carried out at all, let alone specifically by the president since 2008?

Is that a serious question? Do you not recall Obama solemnly promising that "no one who made less than $250K a year married would see one cent of new taxes in his administration"?

Link

Please watch this and get back to me. Obama defined $250K as the cut-off point for new taxes. Agree or disagree, that was his choice on where to draw the line between "will not get any new taxes" and "subject to new taxes".


That's hardly defining the set of $250k people as "the rich" - it's defining those below that level as those who bear the vast burden of our tax structure. But for someone who founds their knowledge of tax burden from the glib comments of his well-off neighbors, I can only offer the words of David Stockman - perhaps you'll recall the name -

"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility. They're on an anti-tax jihad - one that benefits the prosperous classes."

or perhaps Bruce Bartlett - remember him? "Taxes are ridiculously low! And yet the mantra of the Republican Party is 'Tax cuts raise growth.' So - where's the farking growth?"

In short, there will never be an answer that will please you. Government is hard work that requires courage, compromise, and duty to the country before constituency, which is why the GOP as currently constructed is so godawful bad at it.
2012-04-30 05:32:03 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: really the only issue is the fact that the two of you are too farking stupid to see that real buying power is the true metric and not nominal dollars earned.


No, everyone can see that you are insisting on this idiotic notion of "real buying power" that you've pulled from your ass. I've been pretty clear that I find your "real buying power" notion to be totally bogus. I'm not sure how you could have missed that.

Your "real buying power" is not the "true metric". It's not even a metric since unless I missed some math above while skimming the thread you haven't even defined it in a way that can be calculated. After a quick scan I don't even see any specific definition of what you mean by "buying power". If I move to a bigger house and thus the money I have left over after paying my new bigger mortgage is less than before would you say my "buying power" has decreased?

You are using your "real buying power" when you choose to live in NYC. You are buying your address. You can't just magically remove your choice to live in a high cost of living area from your "buying power".
2012-04-30 05:22:30 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Paul Baumer: And there you go saying 250k families are picked on again.

Saying that people want to increase taxes on income levels above $250 is a statement of fact. Who said anything about being "singled out" or "picked on". I have been very clear that I do not think that there shoudl be NO discussion of increasing taxes on the rich. Only that we should be sure to do so in a way that takes into account the fact that not everyone at that level is overflowing with disposable income, particularly dual professional income families who earn it as salary instead of investments and who have substantial expenses such as ailing parents, medical bills, daycare, college tuition, etc.

You may not agree that any such allowance shoudl be made, and your mileage may vary. But *I* can say, I know a few families that would be directly negatively affected, and they are financially less protected than I am because of greater expenses.


And I say again there are countless deductions available that our Congress has found worthy to include in the code - what would you have me subsidize for these "monetized Americans"? you keep speaking about the dire burden this class may face, without bothering to explain why they are due some especial consideration the rest of us are not, or why they ought not be "personally responsible" for their own level of expense. Why stop at 250k? Why not 200 or 100? In fact how can any tax be based on income without being unfair in your eyes, despite the ability to shelter from tax all sorts of useful things that none of us regular joes get - mortgage interest on a second home, a lower capital gains tax, and you have left out the biggest one - THEY DON"T PAY SSA ON WAGES OVER 110k. That 's an instant 10k rebate for Mr. 250k that the rest of us pay. But I guess that's not enough for your friends. The rest of us tax payers need to do more for them.
2012-04-30 05:00:41 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Paul Baumer:

Who said they were unfairly singled out tax-wise?


You did - this whole tangent since discussing OBL was too painful even for the Fark Independents, has been around your claim that

"Actually, According to OBAMA and the Democrats, that's the dividing line for Teh RICH! Apparantly, anyone earniong above $250K a year is subject to being taxed extra since they are "rich".

Obama created the arbitray 250K dividing line between 'regular working class Americans and the evil freeloading rich. Below that line, no new taxes. Above that line, fair game."


I said at the get-go that families earning above a certain mount don;t get tuition assistance becasue "The logic (rightly) is that if your parents make enough, you don't really NEED assistance.".

Don't accidentally create a strawman based on other people's responses. I have not said that a family earning $250K a year is over taxed, or singled out or any of that nonsense.

I am pointing out that a family that earns $250K a year may not be "rich" if they have a lot of expenses such as multiple kids in college, ailing elderly parents, special needs children, etc.


That's a tautology - if you have money you are rich but if you owe that money to someone else you are not. Not very illuminating, I'm afraid.


That just looking at 'annual income' as the sole metric for determining who should be considered "rich" enough to have superfluous income deserving of additional taxes is insufficient.

And there you go saying 250k families are picked on again.

Because even a family making $250K could have sufficient un-subsidized expenses that they achieve a standard of living no better than most people. No they aren't poor. No they don't deserve anyone's pity. But that does not mean they have a beach house in Bermuda, or a private jet, or a team of live-in butlers either.

I happen to know a number of families with combined SALARY incomes in this range, and they live in the same suburban houses and send thier kids to the same public schools and drive the same generic sedans as anyone else.

And obvioulsy, a single man earning $250K with no kids or dependants *IS* rich by any measure, so the issue is not that the $250 mark is wrong in all cases, just that it is not accurate often enough that it shouldn't be the ONLY criteria in my opinion.



Well it's a good thing our tax system takes that into account then - certain expenses are what they call "deductible". Other expenses, like those associated with having children, are incurred at the option of the taxpayer, and are therefore phased out as a function of income.

In short, taxes have gone down and if you don't like expenses, don't incur them. 250k may not be rich, but it's not an income level that needs subsidizing from the rest of America. Do you think there is some constitutional right to be really rich if you make 250k? I can't figure out what exactly you are advocating be done for that stricken class of unfortunates. The old Buddhist construct of "to have more, want less" comes to mind.
2012-04-30 04:34:04 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin:

That's the question I am asking. I know a number of people in this bracket, and not a one of them has seen a reduction in their taxes. (and have been very vocal about it - even those who voted Obama if that matters to any of you).

I know everyone SAYS that taxes have gone down for this bracket, and I believe that is true for people who derive income from investments, capital gains, stock dividends, etc. But I've not seen it out here in the real world amongst the clock punchers. I'm not saying it hasn't occured, just looking for some specifics on exactly how it would affect a salaried family making that.


Let me take your argumentative style then - Fact: the top rate for wage earners in this country has gone down. I have no idea why your pals taxes haven't gone down as well. Can you demonstrate any reason why they may not have? Because all the info I have seen and provided says that it did. Perhaps they are liars, or their income went up, or they can't use a calculator. But the fact that you know someone who hasn't seen a decrease doesn't alter the fact that taxes have in fact decreased.
2012-04-30 04:20:56 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Paul Baumer: The marginal top tax rate has declined during this time, The capital gains tax rate has declined during this time.

Sure. And what other changes in deductions have ALSO happened that could offset this? No longer being able to deduct student loan interest? Earned income credits no longer apply. Families with three or more children receive the same EITC benefit-40 percent of initial earnings-as families with two children.

Again, I am talking about families that earn this income in salary, not investments and stock dividends.

Which is precisely the point I am making. Taxable Income level is not a reliable measure of "rich". Certainly, even with 5 kids, someone making $250 is not living in poverty, but they may not have a standard of living greatly in excess of the average middle class family.


EITC has never been available to someone making 250k, so that's a red herring right there. Student loan interest too. Combined with reduced tax rates, I am really not sure how you are coming up with the idea that there have been ANY de facto tax hikes on the 250k class of folks.
2012-04-30 03:46:49 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: The point is you pay more in federal taxes in terms of real buying power than someone making the exact same amount who lives somewhere else.


And... so? You choose to live in an expensive location you pay for it. I live in San Francisco where things cost a lot too, but I chose to live there so I don't whine about it. Part of the "lifestyle" you can buy with an income is an address. You want your money to go further, move to somewhere that it does.

The whole notion of "but $250,000 isn't rich in NY/SF/whatever" is bogus. Yes, it is rich, that why you can afford to live there. Don't biatch about the cost of your rent or mortgage or how little you have left after paying it when you voluntarily chose to take it on. Same goes for costs of goods. You bought your ticket, you knew what you were getting into. You don't have less "real buying power" you have just chosen to spend a lot of it on location.

You're apparently cool with this. I am not.

What do you want? Society to subsidize your choice of city? Preferential treatment for people who choose to live in expensive cities?

I have just as much buying power as a guy in bumfark nowhere making the same money as I do, I have just chosen to spend a lot of it on a San Francisco address. Of course, they'd never pay as much in bumfark in the first place, a factor you are not taking into consideration in your poor me diatribe.
2012-04-30 03:27:13 PM
1 votes:

Dr Dreidel: Besides which, if that attack boils down to "But what about the guy who gets fired?", my response is "What about the guy that gets hired in his place?"


I think both of them deserve health care, myself.
2012-04-30 03:12:31 PM
1 votes:

LordJiro: How in the jumping blue FARK did this become a tax thread?


Deflection form the conservative trolls. They don't want to debate OBL, as they really don't have a sound argument, so they deflected to Obama tax policy.
2012-04-30 03:08:09 PM
1 votes:

Foundling: If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his liferuns for Congress on a "family values" platform.

2012-04-30 03:07:26 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: the point of taxation is to raise revenues for public services. That's it. There are fair ways to do it and there are unfair ways to do it. Basing it on national numbers which do not account for the disparate impact it has on people's real purchasing power is an unfair way to do it.


So what you're saying is that the taxpayer should subsidize your decision to live in Manhattan?
2012-04-30 03:00:26 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: Rich is a pretty subjective term and if we start calling a family earning $250k "rich" it kinda waters down the term for those who make $25,000,000 no?

Upper middle class depending on location. Could probably squeak into lower upper class in some areas depending.
I wouldn't call it "rich" though because "rich" implies no concerns about paying for college, no clipping coupons, etc.


It is rich. It's not super-wealthy. It's not superlative. It's still farking rich. Five times the national median household income is rich. There are different levels of rich, but $250,000 per year is a pretty good low end of the spectrum.
2012-04-30 02:00:29 PM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: I wouldn't say he had NO impact. I'm just saying his impact was far from the degree that Republicans claim he had.


If a tower is 100ft tall, and someone says "it's like a 1,000 feet tall!", you do not correct it by saying "Nuh-uh, it's like 10 feet tall!".

Putting aside the hypothetical "they" who say the things you disagree with. What impact do you think Regan had on the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union?

Not looking to argue the point, just curious about how much of that was hyperbole and how much was genuine belief.
2012-04-30 01:27:33 PM
1 votes:

hubiestubert: They HAVE to spin this away from the President, or they are going to have to admit that their presumptive candidate has got little but a failed Presidential bid last go around, and a Governorship that saw an awful lot of compromise that they just can't stomach in the current climate.


They're really grasping at straws right now. Look at this fw:fw:fw:fw I received this morning and see if you can match the talking points to their recent headlines:


Which side of the fence?

If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it..
A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".

Well, I forwarded it.
2012-04-30 12:38:52 PM
1 votes:

MrBallou: Dog Welder: I am a Republican. I disagree with President Obama on numerous issues.

On Bin Laden's death, I support Obama 100%. Obama made a gutsy call to send troops into Pakistan without Pakistan's permission, without knowing 100% that Bin Laden was at that compound. If the mission had failed, if Bin Laden had not actually been there, the fallout could have been disastrous and the end of Obama's career.

I'm not sure many other politicians could have made that call. But Obama did.

And I'm glad that utter bastard Bin Laden got riddled with bullets and dumped in the sea.

The Republicans started the fight back when this occurred, complaining that we shouldn't have killed the guy. Really? Then what have we been doing in Afghanistan these last 11 years, trying to NOT kill Bin Laden? I think that's when it became pretty damn obvious the GOP is nothing but noise and opposition to whatever Obama does, even if the end result is something that's pretty damn awesome.

There is no reason the GOP politicized this. None. They should have given the President a thumbs-up for it instead of sticking their thumbs up their collective asses.

Super subtle troll, or is he really coming into the light?


Check my posts from the last several months. I can admit that I've voted Republican most of my adult life. I firmly believe in Republican ideals of pro-business, lower taxes, smaller government, etc. However, the religious fundies running the GOP now are farking nuts.

Not trolling -- I'll admit someone does a good job when they do a good job. Obama was 100% correct on this call of violating another country's sovereignty (people in the Pakistani government were probably helping Bin Laden ... so fark 'em) and taking Bin Laden out.

The problem with this country is that the division between the two sides has become so filled with vitriol that our government can't get anything accomplished. The Dems don't have their hands 100% clean in this, either.

However, I'm looking at a pattern of the GOP:

1) GOP -- "We want this one thing to happen!"
2) The President responds with -- "Okay, let's make this one thing happen!"
3) GOP -- "That's the worst farking idea ever! Why would we do that? Obama's an idiot!"

It's happening over and over and over and over again. It's not good government. It's just being a bunch of obstructionist douchebags for the sake of being obstructionist douchebags.
2012-04-30 12:38:02 PM
1 votes:
Those were the generals in operational command. Obama wasn't the officer in command. Adm. McRaven was in command. And MacArthur deserves farkall credit in taking back the Phillipines since he was caught with his dick in his hands and lost the islands in the first place.
2012-04-30 12:28:45 PM
1 votes:

Noam Chimpsky: cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: The Democrats can't allow a federal execution to happen while a Democrat is president. If they allow it, then they can't oppose capital punsihment ever again. It's a no exception dilemma that they are faced with. It doesn't matter if it's Clinton or Obama or any other Democrat. If they make an exception, then they have to explain their love for the next murderer that they refuse to execute.

Based on what evidence was the execution of McVeigh disallowed by Democrats under Clinton?

Also, what would you call the infiltration of 15 Navy SEALs into a compound in Pakistan to kill a man who murdered 3000+ Americans? Tea time?

As I explained, the Democrats will never allow a federal execution under their watch. Just as any Democrat governor who executes a prisoner can never become president, unless he switches parties.

Obama had to order bin laden eliminated without trial because it would create a terrible political problem for him if he brought bin laden back alive. Bin laden and the Democrats were allies for years, and beans would have been spilt if he had a public soap box at his trial. Not to mention the terrorist reaction, Muslim outreach, and the fact that Obama wouldn't be able to execute him or extract information from him so Republicans could win the next election running on nothing else except "we'll torture bin laden and extract the whereabouts of his sleeper cells, and then we'll execute him".


You are one crazy, bloodthirsty, unAmerican motherfarker, you know that?
2012-04-30 12:28:03 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: Which prepubescent, overly flexible freak of nature should I have referenced?

Justin Bieber?


I don't know if I want to know how you know that Bieber is overly flexible...

brookwoods.com
2012-04-30 11:52:34 AM
1 votes:

Ted Kennedy's Brain Tumor: Yeah, well, Barry Goldwater would've nuked'em. So suck on that, Rom-ama!


Goldwater would cut the heads off of every one of these supposed "conservatives", shiat down their necks, make it into a stew and serve it up for every moron that voted one of these morons into office. Then he would have fixed the Republican party.
2012-04-30 11:48:21 AM
1 votes:

More_Like_A_Stain: Bush blinked at Tora Bora, and then couldn't be bothered with looking for OBL after. Just another in a long string of failures. So no. Is there anything that GWB was successful at in his entire life? As a student, a TANG pilot, a businessman, or a President? Just one? Anything that can be pointed to and honestly claim "for that alone, the world is a better place"?


QFT. Anybody have an answer? We'll accept anything above the level of clearing brush.
2012-04-30 11:46:49 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: For three years, Bush did nothing about bin Laden .


He didn't even blow up an aspirin factory.

/the classics
2012-04-30 11:34:23 AM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Or that it was only through some specific agency unique to Obama that he opportunity arose.


Well, since Bush closed the bin Laden office at the CIA and Obama re-opened it, yes, there was an agency unique to Obama.
2012-04-30 11:16:03 AM
1 votes:
Obama should give more credit to the generals, like Bush did.

Oh, sorry. Did I say "give more credit to the generals?" I meant "fire the generals who don't follow his orders to a 'T.'"
2012-04-30 11:15:46 AM
1 votes:
www.presidentsrus.com

This makes Dukakis in a tank look genuine
2012-04-30 11:10:25 AM
1 votes:

Dr Dreidel: Did you miss the Iraq War?


Nope.

Ordering a full-scale military invasion while backed by a blood-thirsty public is relatively easy. There was no chance that we were going to lose the initial assault. History has proven that Bush and Co. never thought past the initial invasion. He was just playing cowboy.
2012-04-30 11:09:02 AM
1 votes:

That Masked Man: thomps: That Masked Man: Obama was lucky enough to be in office when OBL was found and killed!

so brave

wow i think the only way you could have exerted less effort in that troll is if you hadn't bothered to bold the punchline.

It was a half-assed troll for a pointless argument. Anyone in the world would have authorized a trigger pulled on OBL in those conditions and to say otherwise is ridiculous.

You know, assuming OBL was even really killed in the manner they state he was killed, and all that other "Since when can you trust the goverment?" business.


This is why you need to use your whole ass when trolling. It just makes you look stupid instead of trollishly deluded.
2012-04-30 11:07:57 AM
1 votes:

Noam Chimpsky: GameSprocket: Noam Chimpsky: Anyone know why the Democrats didn't have the guts to execute Timothy McVeigh after he was convicted and sentenced to death? It's hard to understand considering how gutsy Democrats are.

Unsurprisingly, you have a very odd sense of what courage actually means.

Are you saying that not executing Timothy McVeigh demonstrated guts from the Democrats whereas Bush executing Timothy McVeigh as soon as he took office demonstrated cowardice?


Executing an unarmed man who is locked in a cell is not particularly brave.
2012-04-30 11:07:41 AM
1 votes:

Dog Welder: I am a Republican. I disagree with President Obama on numerous issues.

On [[a certain topic]], I support Obama [[more than zero]]%


You're not a Republican anymore, you're a RINO.
2012-04-30 11:02:11 AM
1 votes:
Watching the Conservatives/GOP apologists get so butthurt over this is very delightful and entertaining to watch.

I imagine that if the mission was botched, the GOP wouldn't spend every waking day pinning a failed mission on Obama, especially considering that they keep insisting that Obama had very little to do with this, amirght?

Another example:

GOP: Obama hasn't done enough in Libya
Obama: I'm teaming up with France and the UK to help the opposition forces there
GOP: Obama is doing too much in Libya
(Qadaffi is toppled)
GOP: Obama didn't have anything to do with that, it was all thanks to France and the UK.

These people have absolutely no shame it seems.
2012-04-30 10:58:29 AM
1 votes:

GameSprocket: Noam Chimpsky: Jake Havechek: Noam Chimpsky: The asshole made the SEALs stand ready waiting for the "gutsy" order to put a bullet in bin laden's head while he slept on it.

You America hating bastard. How much does al qaeda pay you?

Would you have slept on it?

I am not sure I would have "slept on it", but I would have certainly taken some time to think about it. I'm sure in a simplified GOP world, it is easy to send a small team into a foreign country to make a military raid against a target who is "probably" actually there.

Not even counting the problems this raid causes with international relations and the possible loss of life involved, the Right would never have approved this raid because a failure would be political suicide. A failed military raid in the desert has never been a path to re-election.

/Not to mention that Obama killed the GOP's favorite boogeyman.


Did you miss the Iraq War?

Also, Bush is reported to have "consulted with a higher father" (to the exclusion of his actual father, a man with some actual war-in-Iraq experience) and little else before giving the order to bomb Baghdad. I don't know how that matches with "sleeping on it", but to me it reads "crammed before a final". Not really becoming of a C-in-C.

// I'm no model student, but with so much blood and treasure at stake, I'd do some damn homework
2012-04-30 10:57:22 AM
1 votes:

kbronsito: When troops under Jimmy Carter fark up a clandestine mission planned at the highest level, it means that he is an idiot and democrats are weak on defense. When troops under Obama are successful in a clandestine mission planned at the highest level, then its all about the troops and the president should get no credit.


And when Reagan farks up on several levels (including cutting and running), he's promoted to demigod.
2012-04-30 10:54:27 AM
1 votes:
When troops under Jimmy Carter fark up a clandestine mission planned at the highest level, it means that he is an idiot and democrats are weak on defense. When troops under Obama are successful in a clandestine mission planned at the highest level, then its all about the troops and the president should get no credit.
2012-04-30 10:50:07 AM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: President, General, General, General.
Need some help with your logic application, subster


Commander-in-Chief, General, General, General.
Need some help with your chain-of-command, replier.
2012-04-30 10:49:21 AM
1 votes:
Bush started the war. Obama merely kept the search going. It was the generals who knew where to look. Kinda different from subby's examples.

Oh well. Either way, just another person killed by our government that was brought to power by...our government.
2012-04-30 10:48:49 AM
1 votes:

CPennypacker: He would have gotten credit for it if he farked it up


See Carter, Jimmy.
2012-04-30 10:45:57 AM
1 votes:

heap: qorkfiend:
I don't think I've ever seen a clearer example of "deliberately obtuse".



sorry, quoted phrase made me think of the master


I made this for him a very long time ago:

i611.photobucket.com
2012-04-30 10:36:18 AM
1 votes:
Hey, GOP. Let's ask George W. Bush if President Obama deserves the credit for taking out bin Laden.....

O_o

Oops.... I forgot:

i78.photobucket.com

"The greatest trick the GOP ever pulled was convincing their voter base George W. Bush didn't exist."

Nevermind.
2012-04-30 10:36:05 AM
1 votes:

ongbok: So let me get this right. Obama is responsible for the actions of individual servicemen when they are picking up prostitutes and he should be criticized for that. But when he orders the intelligence community to re-focus on Bin Laden, then orders the operation that kills him, he is not responsible for that and deserves no credit.


No. Obama is only responsible for being a black, muslim, kenyan, communist, socialist with fascist leanings. Everything else is just fallout from that incredibly bad decision on his part.
2012-04-30 10:35:19 AM
1 votes:

Noam Chimpsky: Anyone know why the Democrats didn't have the guts to execute Timothy McVeigh after he was convicted and sentenced to death? It's hard to understand considering how gutsy Democrats are.


Unsurprisingly, you have a very odd sense of what courage actually means.
2012-04-30 10:34:14 AM
1 votes:

Jake Havechek: 1. Mitt Romney is "too rich" to be president. Mitt Romney's net worth is almost identical ($250 million) to the Democratic Party's 2004 nominee, John Kerry ($240 million). If Democrats had no problem with a rich guy running for president in 2004, why now?


Kerry lost, and maybe you did not realize it, but a lot of Democrats had a huge problem with Kerry, because of how disconnected he seemed from our concerns. His wealth was a hindrance to him understanding how we viewed the world and it cost him the election.


2. President Obama killed Osama bin Laden: Romney might not have. The Navy SEALS, not Barack Obama, killed Osama bin Laden. To suggest otherwise is an insult to their bravery and valor. Besides, does any serious person honestly believe that any president--of either party--would not have pulled the trigger when informed that Osama bin Laden was in the cross-hairs? Really?

Pulling that trigger, as you put it, was a potential huge political liability. A failed action against OBL in Pakistan would have been a huge liability in the upcoming election. George Bush, a friend and buisness associate of the Laden family, let him escape at Tora Bora and refused to peruse him.

I don't believe any Republican president would have pulled that trigger, because of their political association with the Bin Laden family and the ramifications to that association. It took a Democrat to kill Osama Bin Laden and only a Democrat could do it.


3. Young people will vote for President Obama again because he is "cooler" than Romney, as is evidenced by his appearances on Jimmy Fallon. College-age voters are over "cool." They want jobs and can't find them. One out of every two college graduates will soon hit the Obama economy's wall of reality and join the growing ranks of the unemployed. Romney may not be "cool," but he looks like that family friend mom and dad said to go see because his successful company is hiring. Put simply, Romney may not be the "iPod President," but he sure looks like the "Paycheck President." And that's very cool.


Maybe you have not been paying attention, but young people are fatigued, disappointed in Obama, but don't like Republicans in general and Romney specifically. They won't be showing up much in this election. Unless there is a huge change between now and November you can pretty much count the young vote out of this election.


4. President Obama is fighting those evil meany Republicans and their "War on Women." The Obama economy has been a disaster for female employment. Nine out of ten jobs lost under Obama belonged to women. Female voters are over the "hope and change." They have kids to feed and family budgets to balance. They want to work and earn higher wages. Obama has failed to produce either.


Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahah! That you believe this tripe is amazing. Yes the economy has been a disaster for the working class, but remind me again which party held the economy hostage last year? Oh yeah that would be the Republicans, which party slowed the recovery by at least two to three years, oh yeah that would be the Republicans.

Yes people are tired of this economy, but the problem the Republicans have is that the people are not blaming Obama exclusively. They are blaming everybody, Obama and the Democrats for not being able to overcome or work a deal with the Republicans, and the Republicans for being obstructionist asshats.

If the Republicans would shut up about issues that affect women instead of being solidly against them every time this problem might go away, but they just can't help expressing their ideas about women and their ideas are that women are second class citizens.

Republicans can't win on the economy the best they can do is to neutralize the Presidents slight advantage on that issue.


5. President Obama grew up poor and therefore has more compassion and willingness to maintain the social safety net. President Obama's parents were professors, hardly a destitute upbringing (the Washington Post says Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, Obama's mother, made what would today be a $123,000 salary-a figure that would place her in the top six percent of all individual income ea ...


Not sure what your point is? A $123,000 today is upper middle class not rich, and Obama has a whole lot more experience with the poor and middle class then Romney, he sure as hell as a ton more empathy and it shows.

Romney keeps trying to play a Man of the People card and every time he or his wife say something stupid that makes them look like gigantic tools. He would be better off accepting that he is a rich elite white guy and play up the better then you angle. Sure people might not like it, but I think a lot more would respond to the idea that because of his wealth, education, and position in society that he has a plan and that plan will be good for the US and all her citizens.

If Romney played up that he is a leader of the people because of all his advantages, not despite of them, that he can see the big picture and has a plan I think that would resonate with the people more then his weak assed attempts to be a man of the people, salt of the earth, common folk.

I'm of the opinion that nothing but a massive scandal or disaster will change the outcome of this election between now and November. The US population is set, we know who we are voting for and the Republicans are going to lose the Presidency, retain the Senate and Congress, but lose some seats. We could hold the election today and again in November and I am of the opinion the results will be the same.
2012-04-30 10:31:44 AM
1 votes:

Il Douchey: SealTeam6: "Mr. President, we have located BinLaden, should we kill him or let him go?"
Obama: "Uh, kill him"

Oh yeah, that ranks right up there with Operation Overlord. Never again can we doubt Barry's military prowess. This man has been in the trenches, confronted Hell straight on, and he did not flinch. Yes, he will flaunt this hard earned military gravitas -can you blame him?


Conservatives will forever be butthurt over the fact that 9/11 happened under Bush's watch. So of course they have to belittle anything Obama successfully does because then they can convince themselves that the President doesn't really do that much and thus Bush isn't really to blame for anything.
2012-04-30 10:22:27 AM
1 votes:
Let 0bama run on the fact that 0sama is dead platform.

People realize that he can't kill 0sama again.

The more he can distract people from the economy, the better off he is.
2012-04-30 10:19:26 AM
1 votes:
Since Nixon, Republicans have been purporting the myth that only they know how to wield military power and all members of the U.S. military are Republicans.
To get shown up by a "socialist" with zero military experience is truly embarrassing.
But the biggest assault on al Qaida was conducted by the American people when they voted Obama into office. It blew all bin Laden's talking points to pieces.
2012-04-30 10:19:05 AM
1 votes:
animalnewyork.com

Hot like Obama killing bin Laden.
2012-04-30 10:16:02 AM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: Yes. A one day low man op is exactly the same as the planning that went into world war 2. Seriously a dumb conjecture.


Which begs the question: why didn't Bush do it if it was so easy? bin Laden had lived there since 2002.
2012-04-30 10:14:27 AM
1 votes:
A commander in the chain of command is responsible for everything his command does and fails to do. He's the Commander-in-Chief, of course he's responsible for the mission. Don't make me get Jayne to explain the chain of command to you.

30.media.tumblr.com
2012-04-30 10:11:10 AM
1 votes:
I love how some people's personal dislike for President Obama is so intense they seem to think he is not allowed to do what every president before him and every president after him will do, campaign on a successful policy decision. Especially when it overlaps into hypocrisy by those who glorified GW Bush's "Mission Accomplished" aircraft carrier dog and pony show. At least with President Obama the mission was actually accomplished.

I also know damn well that if Osama was still alive or the raid failed, the Republicans would be all over it saying it was an example of President Obama's failed leadership. Since it did not and Osama is dead, then the opposite must be true. I think the main problem is that this goes totally against the Republican's attempted narrative and they can't stand it.
2012-04-30 10:09:38 AM
1 votes:
bin Laden was good for business. Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush's business.
2012-04-30 10:09:13 AM
1 votes:
I was out on Friday with a bunch of friends that work for Republican legislators and they were all railing on this. I remember thinking, "This must be the talking point for next week."

That's a bingo!
2012-04-30 10:06:25 AM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: Yes. A one day low man op is exactly the same as the planning that went into world war 2. Seriously a dumb conjecture.


Americans are just relieved we didn't have McCain as president when we located bin Laden. He had already stated that he would never go in to Pakistan to get him and Obama was naive for saying he would.

Thank goodness a man of action was in place to seize the moment, not some republican eager to appease the corrupted Pakistanis.
2012-04-30 10:03:40 AM
1 votes:

bulldg4life: How dare people politicize such things!


The ongoing campaign argument over which person ordering death from afar is the more "courageous" is wrong no matter who's selling it. But for John McCain (who put footage of himelf as a POW in pretty much every campaign commercial he ever made) to decry politicizing war and national security is really rich. Between McCain and George W Bush, the aught years were an orgy of self-congratulations, paeans to their own greatness and celebrations of war and killing. They set the standard. Link
2012-04-30 09:36:07 AM
1 votes:

thomps: Team Obama released a video on Friday, partially narrated by former President Bill Clinton, that praised the president's decision to order the killing of the al Qaeda chief one year from Tuesday and questioned whether Romney would have made the same choice.

i don't know if it's "taking credit away from the SEALS," but questioning whether romney would have made the same choice is cheap politics Barack Obama is truly an American citizen, whether he is truly a Christian, whether he is a godless socialist intent on destroying America is perfectly fine.

2012-04-30 08:48:56 AM
1 votes:

Il Douchey: SealTeam6: "Mr. President, we have located BinLaden, should we kill him or let him go?"
Obama: "Uh, kill him"

Oh yeah, that ranks right up there with Operation Overlord. Never again can we doubt Barry's military prowess. This man has been in the trenches, confronted Hell straight on, and he did not flinch. Yes, he will flaunt this hard earned military gravitas -can you blame him?


And who directed the intel agencies to go find him, and then sent them off to get him?

Jake Havechek: I don't know where he is. I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.

-- George W. Bush

2012-04-30 08:07:26 AM
1 votes:
Ummm...they were military commanders.
 
Displayed 87 of 87 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report