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.

(AP)   President Obama: Economy, not gay marriage, will decide the vote. You Sir, are out of here   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 193
    More: Obvious, President Obama, same-sex marriages, civil laws  
•       •       •

2362 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2012 at 12:55 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-15 03:04:01 PM  
Obviously a gay marriage registry would save any struggling consumer economy with the endless number of consumer goods and textiles involved in coordinating a new household.

It will take the lesbian marriage registry to get the manufacturing sector back on track, however, as my stereotypometer tells me they favor things like Subarus, kiln-dried logs and hard goods.
 
2012-05-15 03:08:38 PM  

Mentat: FlashHarry: cameroncrazy1984: Is the Freep mod on an early shift today?

jesus, no shiat!

They aren't even trying anymore.


The Headline of the year contest for this tab will boil down to 'OK, so which headline was the least tolling, temper tantrum bullshiat? Ah, OK, farkers, here are your 3 choices for political headline of the year!'

In the Rush submission, you can just hear subby's feet stamping as he made it. Are any right-leaning headlines capable of humor?

Oh well, looks like its time to cut back on visiting Fark if they are so adamant about copying the media they used to mock.
 
2012-05-15 03:11:09 PM  

MrEricSir: So the "choice" comes down to

a. Obama, and keep our sluggish economy as-is
b. Romney, who is known for firing people

Yeah, I'll have to stick with option A here.


For me, it's a choice between a center-right president who has taken steps to alleviate the financial crunch the poor and middle classes have experienced since 2007 or so, and who I disagree with on a number of issues. Or a shameless plutocrat, who has said he will increase the financial pain on the poor and middle classes in order to lower taxes for the wealthiest Americans and continuing/instituting the failed policies of "trickle down economics".

It's not a difficult choice, really... It's even easier being a MAsshole and knowing first hand what Romney's style of governing will look like and mean for folks like myself in the lower middle class.
 
2012-05-15 03:11:43 PM  

FlashHarry: cameroncrazy1984: Is the Freep mod on an early shift today?

jesus, no shiat!

seriously, though - the economy is in FAR better shape than when obama took the reins. two-plus years of private sector job growth. a doubling of the dow.

all with republicans sabotaging the economy at every possible step. what the fark more do you want?


I was promised unicorns that shiat rainbows, so I'm pissed. At least that's what FOX told me.
 
2012-05-15 03:21:57 PM  
Obama has already taken care of the economy for years to come.

Obamacare is going to add 17 new taxes or penalties for $502 billion over its first 10 years.

A big jump in Obamacare taxes comes in 2013, for Medicare Hospital Insurance tax and taxes on investment income for high-income earners.

Then in 2014, a new tax is introduced for health insurance premiums. That year also marks the start of the individual and employer mandate penalties.

These tax increases will have negative economic effects because they transfer resources from the private sector to government - as a result, the tax hikes will slow economic growth, reduce employment, and suppress wages.
 
2012-05-15 03:23:46 PM  
No, gay marriage will not determine the election. But, it will get Obama's base enthused. You know whose base is not enthusiastic? Romney's.
 
2012-05-15 03:26:15 PM  

chimp_ninja: RealClearPolitics electoral college map based on state-level polling. Presently 253 Obama to 170 Romney, with 115 tossups.

270towin's electoral college map. Presently 227 Obama to 191 Romney, with 120 tossups.

No one has this thing locked up, and there's a lot of time between now and Election Day, but claiming President Obama is "out of here" makes you look divorced from reality.


Don't you dare bring truth and reason into a Fark politics thread!
 
2012-05-15 03:30:00 PM  

Freakman: No, gay marriage will not determine the election. But, it will get Obama's base enthused. You know whose base is not enthusiastic? Romney's.


Heh... Pish Posh. Why, just look how excited the Arizona GOP party chairman, Tom Morrissey was last week:

"Maybe it's going to take getting behind somebody we weren't so excited about..."

Calm down, Tommy... You're gushing.
 
2012-05-15 03:31:27 PM  

WombatControl:

Look at the state of the economy. Consumer spending isn't what's keeping us in recession. That rebounded to pre-recession levels two years ago and has been steady ever since. Government spending isn't the problem, that's also increased dramatically. What is the problem? Private investment is still dramatically down. What will restore private investment? A better investment climate - one with fewer regulatory and tax risks, rules that are clear and enforced on a consistent basis, and one where long-term investments can have reasonable rates of return. We don't have that now. Companies are sitting on capital because the long-term risks are too great to justify spending right now. Until that changes, the economy will continue to limp along rather than picking up steam.


I'm with you here. Banking reform and accountability for the people/firms who enabled the housing crash would help. As it is, Wall Street firms continue to run the government and the little guys like me will likely lose on long-term investments while the investment companies continue to pile up cash and pay it out to their employees as bonuses. Wall Street no longer helps the small investor, they only help themselves by fleecing the little guy. No one in government has the cajones to address the issue, since they're all profiting from the current system. I see Romney as part of that corrupt system, out to screw the little guy. Obama's lack of leadership on this issue is equally disturbing. So no matter who is elected in November, this particular problem is not likely to change for the better.


And the longer the economy remains weak, the worse off we are. Short-term unemployment is bad. Long-term unemployment is disastrous. Workers who are out of the job market over the long-term become essentially unemployable - we are facing a "lost generation" because of this President's policies, especially among those first starting out. Half of college graduates are finding that the bottom rungs on the job ladder are missing - and if they can't get their careers started now their personal and professional development will suffer for the rest of their lives. That's absolutely unacceptable, and the President would rather talk about gay marriage and contraception than face the reality of where this economy is.

I agree with you again. The long-term unemployment issue is also bad for older workers. Age 45+ that were let go due to high salary aren't getting re-hired. Many have been out of work for over a year, many no longer count as "unemployed" because benefits expired and they can't apply any longer. I have two friends who were highly-paid civil engineers with 15-20 years experience, both laid off in 2010. Both now doing odd jobs (roofing and home repair) for low wages because they can't find work in their field. Neither is "unemployed" because benefits ran out some time ago. Although many companies are now hiring, they're not looking for people with 15-20 years experience. This is not the America that I grew up in, but it may well be the new reality.


Even if all Romney does is prevent government from growing at the rate it has, that will help immensely. What we really need to do is what Canada did in the early 1990s - massively cut government and get the debt under control. (Oddly enough, it was the liberal Jean Chretien that did that - and what he did makes the Ryan Budget look tame in comparison.) Chretien cut budgets on an average of 20%, and not just by cutting the rate of growth, but real cuts of substance.

If we got half that - cutting the actual size of government by 10% along with regulatory reform and simplification of the tax code, we'd start seeing some real growth again.

It's not that difficult - we can't fund government at 25% of GDP, maintain entitlement spending, and have economic growth in this country. We have to start making the tough choices now.


This is where we part ways. The huge increase in government spending is not sustainable, but cutting it too early will kill what little recovery we have underway. We need the private sector to get stronger before we start slashing government jobs. When we cut the size of the government, which we WILL need to do within a few years, a lot of laid off government workers will be hitting the unemployment line. If the private sector can't absorb most of those people, then we haven't fixed anything. Similarly, slashing regulations will make many problems worse - I contend that the housing bubble and crash was the result of not enough banking regulation and not enough enforcement. With less regulation, industry (all industry, not just banking) will do what they always do - maximize profit at the expense of everything else. If you cut the environmental regulations, pollution will be back to the 1960's levels within a decade and a ton of people will be out of work because of it. Fewer regulations might translate to lower production costs and lower prices for manufactured goods, but it also means fewer jobs - there are a lot of people employed in the regulatory compliance field. So if we end up with some cheaper products but higher unemployment, will it result in increased demand and economic growth? I doubt it.

Romney isn't perfect, but he's had a record of making tough calls before and restoring failing organizations to health. That's what this country needs right now, and if Romney can make that case he'll win....

He also has a record of bleeding companies dry, discarding the workers, and leaving the taxpayer to support them. He's also said that he's in favor of war with Iran. I'd much prefer to fix some of our issues at home before we start borrowing more money for bombs and defense contractors.
 
2012-05-15 03:31:47 PM  
You mean the economy that Obama keeps trying to fix, yet is getting stymied and thwarted constantly by a deranged and fanatical republican party that cares nothing about the people?
 
2012-05-15 03:34:19 PM  

karnal: Obama has already taken care of the economy for years to come.


We should totally vote Republican. They know how to fix economies.
 
2012-05-15 03:43:28 PM  

karnal: Obama has already taken care of the economy for years to come.

Obamacare is going to add 17 new taxes or penalties for $502 billion over its first 10 years.

A big jump in Obamacare taxes comes in 2013, for Medicare Hospital Insurance tax and taxes on investment income for high-income earners.

Then in 2014, a new tax is introduced for health insurance premiums. That year also marks the start of the individual and employer mandate penalties.

These tax increases will have negative economic effects because they transfer resources from the private sector to government - as a result, the tax hikes will slow economic growth, reduce employment, and suppress wages.


why don't you provide the link copy & paste from?
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/25/chart-of-the-week-obamacares-17-n e w-taxes/

verbatim
 
2012-05-15 03:46:07 PM  
Lando Lincoln

karnal: Obama has already taken care of the economy for years to come.

We should totally vote Republican. They know how to fix economies.



How has Obama helped the economy to recover?

>spent $1 trillion on payoffs to their various political allies
>ObamaCare
>fail to pass or even work seriously on a national budget
...

And how does a typical democrat try to fix the economy?

A. Tax and spend.
B. Borrow and spend.
C. Or tax and borrow and spend.
 
2012-05-15 03:53:54 PM  
I think the karnal is stuck in a copypasta loop
 
2012-05-15 04:00:47 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Is the Freep mod on an early shift today?

Regardless, Romney's only hope is that the economy gets worse between now and November, something that hasn't happened in two years at least.


The Republicans are planning to hold the debt ceiling hostage again. Because it worked so well for them last time.
 
2012-05-15 04:00:58 PM  
economy? get a cdl or welder's certificate and employers will beat a path to your door.
 
2012-05-15 04:05:06 PM  

TV's Vinnie: You mean the economy that Obama keeps trying to fix, yet is getting stymied and thwarted constantly by a deranged and fanatical republican party that cares nothing about the people?


JustGetItRight: Don't you dare bring truth and reason into a Fark politics thread!


What he said. :)
 
2012-05-15 04:06:17 PM  
CPennypacker


I think the karnal is stuck in a copypasta loop



Not so much stuck as trapped.
 
2012-05-15 04:19:38 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Is the Freep mod on an early shift today?

Regardless, Romney's only hope is that the economy gets worse between now and November, something that hasn't happened in two years at least.


Clearly it is Freep Day on Fark. Threads have been redlit about the CO gay marriage filibuster, Mitt Romeny's economic "success story" taking bailout funds , Michele Bachmann lying in her fundraising letters, and Texas executing an innocent man

Meanwhile this was greenlit, as was a screed from "Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog" and a factually incorrect rant for Powerline
 
2012-05-15 04:20:16 PM  
Republicans legislating to stop gay marriage = just another day
Obama saying that he wishes that Republicans would quit legislating to stop gay marriage = OMFG WAR ON AMERICA FARTBONGO
 
2012-05-15 04:38:28 PM  

cman: fark you, America

You all know that I am not a fan of Obama. But, at the same time, I won't blame Obama for shiat he has no real control over. There are millions of pieces in this finely crafted device called the economy. The President is a bolt holding the driver side door onto the frame.

If you are gonna vote against Obama, then do it for actual real reasons, not some made up shiat of whom you can scapegoat easily.


Not only that, but the shiat was going downhill when he took office. It has since slowed its supersonic slide, and started slowly working its way back up to the top of that hill, this shiat doesn't happen overnight.
 
2012-05-15 04:44:41 PM  

Mikey1969: cman: fark you, America

You all know that I am not a fan of Obama. But, at the same time, I won't blame Obama for shiat he has no real control over. There are millions of pieces in this finely crafted device called the economy. The President is a bolt holding the driver side door onto the frame.

If you are gonna vote against Obama, then do it for actual real reasons, not some made up shiat of whom you can scapegoat easily.

Not only that, but the shiat was going downhill when he took office. It has since slowed its supersonic slide, and started slowly working its way back up to the top of that hill, this shiat doesn't happen overnight.


Everything tanked in September 2008, before Obama was even elected.
 
2012-05-15 04:50:06 PM  

coco ebert: What conservatives don't realize is that while in 2004 "gay marriage" was enough of a wedge issue to bring conservatives out to vote, this time around it will function as a wedge issue to bring liberals out to vote. The tide is turning in favor of marriage equality.


This. Our economy is slowly getting better, so social issues will decide this. As in, Obama will come out for human rights, the GOP will be against it, and the ME generation will take one look at Romneybot and unleash votes, and possibly the power of Anon.

/Really, we're a nice group. Don't shiat on human rights in front of us.
 
2012-05-15 04:50:19 PM  
Ernest T Bass:

You make a good argument, but there are a couple of problems with the idea that government spending can get us out of this economic downturn.

First is the assumption that government spending employs people - that's true in a limited way, but not always. If all you have is a transfer payment, the only people being employed are the ones administering the transfers. They're not producing anything, they're just taking from one group, taking a cut off the top, and giving the remainder to another group. Is any money being produced there? No. It's all administrative costs. But does that employ people? Yes, but it employs people who don't produce anything of tangible value. That's why you don't see economies that produce mostly bureaucrats doing very well - because all bureaucracy does is increase deadweight loss.

Or think of it this way: how are government employees paid? The government has to tax to get the money to pay its employees. That means you're taking a dollar from one part of the economy and giving it to government employees. If spending money on bureaucrats produced economic growth, that wouldn't be a problem. But it doesn't produce growth, it just reduces it somewhere else. Growth of government comes at the expense of the rest of the economy; private sector growth does not.

Once you get that concept, a lot of things flow from that, and you start to understand why "economic stimulus" doesn't work and government austerity does.

You also make a second assumption that's not true. You're assuming that all regulations are actually necessary for health, safety, or welfare. That's just not the case. You're forgetting a concept called rent seeking. Let's say I'm the CEO of McDonalds. I want to shut down Subway, but I can't do it through the market because Subway is too popular. But the government can shut down Subway. So what do I do? I gin up a study that shows that having sandwhich toppings under a sneeze guard is a risk to public health, and baking bread in stores causes cancer of the uvula. The study doesn't have to rigorous, but it does have to be enough to get on The Today Show and Good Morning America and scare a lot of people. And sure enough, those scared people demand their Congresscritter Must Do Something!™ So either they pass a law destroying Subway's business model or they direct an agency to promulgate regulations that does it. And suddently, Subway goes out of business because they can't run their stores as they did before. Maybe years later that study gets debunked, but good luck ever getting rid of that regulation - because if you are for getting that regulation, you simply must be for poisoned lettuce and uvula cancer.

That's obviously an extreme hypothetical, but stuff like that happens all the time in the real world. It's called regulatory capture.

In fact, take the poster child for government regulation. Remember "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair, and how that motivated Congress to finally regulate the meat industry so we didn't end up eating human with our hamburgers? Pretty much all that story is totally wrong - there was actually very little to no evidence that any of that happened. Meat production was already regulated before the book came out. And the meat packing industry wanted the regulations to happen because it would freeze out their competitors and helped resolve the PR crisis that Sinclair caused.
 
2012-05-15 04:57:47 PM  

Surool: Everything tanked in September 2008, before Obama was even elected.


Yes, I am aware of that, but that isn't the point at which the downhill momentum magically started to reverse, that took awhile, and Obama wasn't helped by an entire party of obstructionist.
 
2012-05-15 05:00:15 PM  

YELLOL: hugram: This is Obama's economy...

hugram's derp snipped

Your taxes have not gone up since Obama took ...
===========================

What a load of libtard crap.

Here's some real numbers that mean something to real voters:

average gasoline price january 20, 2009 $1.898/gallon
average gasoline price may 15, 2012 $3.814/gallon

Not my website but these numbers seem about right. Link

I wonder how much of this increased gasoline price translates into taxes that didn't go up? You do know there are federal taxes on retail gasoline purchases, right?


What a load of crap indeed. I wonder how much you know about gasoline taxes. For several decades now, federal gas tax has been (and still is) about $0.18 per gallon. It was that amount when gas was $1.50/gal, it's the same amount when gas is $3.50/gal. It is a fixed tax amount, not a percentage, and if anything, federal gas tax revenue has decreased because people are buying less gas.

Try again, bucko. Or shut up.
 
2012-05-15 05:13:13 PM  

YELLOL: Mrtraveler01: YELLOL: I imagine Obama would tend to agree that high gasoline prices are not helpful to his reelection.

Gas prices are going down where I live. I think it's around 3.40/gallon now.

What the hell are you talking about?

It started out with some guy comparing the stock prices on Jan 20, 2009 to today's stock price to prove how great Obama was. I countered with gasoline prices on those same dates as a comparison to show the opposite. Then someone else tried to change the discussion to a tax rate that has not changed in the interim.

And gas prices even at $3.40 are still a lot higher than on January 20, 2009. Although the federal tax rate per gallon has not changed under Obama.

There I think that covers it and gets you up to speed.


It started out with you complaining about the higher taxes due to higher gas prices, and when caught, becoming Martin Short's SNL sleazeball:

"I didn't day that."
"No I didn't."
"Why do you keep saying I said that? I didn't say that."

Ad nauseam.
 
2012-05-15 06:05:22 PM  
www.commonsensedemocracy.com

Really, outta here, subby? Better a Republican Depression than a Democratic Recovery, eh?
 
2012-05-15 06:12:46 PM  

karnal: add 17 new taxes


Don't forget, he's also going to confiscate all our guns and enslave all White people in FEMA camps.
 
2012-05-15 06:38:25 PM  

ToxicMunkee: I remember when Bush was president and I got my ass reamed because "omg, the president doesn't have control over the price of gas or the economy!"

But here we are, with Obama being blamed for not lowering gas prices or fixing the economy.


Can we also blame Obama for not being responsible for the fact that gas prices are now dropping?
 
2012-05-15 07:26:09 PM  
I think we should vote for Romney's plan that will increase our debt AND increase unemployment.

Because, he's not blah.
 
2012-05-15 07:30:02 PM  

Omahawg: economy? get a cdl or welder's certificate and employers will beat a path to your door.


Suuuuuure they will, sport.
 
2012-05-15 07:35:47 PM  

karnal: How has Obama helped the economy to recover?

He's done lots of things. And it has recovered quite a bit. Only a partisan fool would say otherwise.

spent $1 trillion on payoffs to their various political allies

Get off the farking drugs, man.

ObamaCare

...has done a lot to help a lot of Americans...

fail to pass or even work seriously on a national budget

No, he's submitted a budget every single year he's been in office. Just because Boehner and Cantor can't get their shiat together doesn't mean that Obama hasn't done his job.

You tell me what the GOP is going to do to fix our economy better than Obama.

 
2012-05-15 07:49:34 PM  

WombatControl: You're assuming that all regulations are actually necessary for health, safety, or welfare.


No, nobody is assuming that.

Hey, can you tell us about the $10,000 building permit for a shower again?
 
2012-05-15 07:51:52 PM  

stewmadness: Mentat: FlashHarry: cameroncrazy1984: Is the Freep mod on an early shift today?

jesus, no shiat!

They aren't even trying anymore.

Oh, did the 9 to 1 liberal to conservative article ratio upset you?


I have this thing about headlines being funny and/or intelligent. Conservative butthurt troll headlines are rarely either.
 
2012-05-15 08:17:19 PM  

WombatControl:

You make a good argument, but there are a couple of problems with the idea that government spending can get us out of this economic downturn.


Gov't spending won't get us out. But it did provide a cushion at the bottom and kept things from getting even worse. I'm just saying that the private sector recovery should be allowed to get a little stronger before we dive into austerity measures. Private sector growth is what will get us out, and gov't spending will have to be slashed. I think we're just disagreeing on the timing to implement that.


You also make a second assumption that's not true. You're assuming that all regulations are actually necessary for health, safety, or welfare. That's just not the case.

I'm not assuming at all. But I recall that one or more presidential candidates recently proposed to abolish entire government agencies. I'm sure that there are more regulations than needed, but abolishing entire agencies is not the answer. Even if those regulators aren't producing widgets, when they clock out, they become consumers with disposable income. Putting them all on the unemployment line next January won't create growth. I'm all for carefully evaluating the current regs, repealing the stupid/redundant ones, and trimming the government workforce (the stupid/redundant ones?) where ever needed. Methodically, over a few years as the private sector improves and absorbs more workers. But slashing tens of thousands of government jobs and deleting entire volumes from the CFR is not the way to spur economic growth.

Let the private sector regain more momentum, let unemployment drop a little more, then begin to trim government. I would vote for that - but I don't hear it from either candidate.
 
2012-05-15 08:49:17 PM  

ghare: Omahawg: economy? get a cdl or welder's certificate and employers will beat a path to your door.

Suuuuuure they will, sport.


well...$20-$25 an hour with benefits but that's easy living compared to the rest of the service sector mcjobs in the midwest

welders needed

and, considering i work for a trucking company, yes, "sport". in the middle of '08 NOTHING was loading out of the port of houston or anywhere else. now we're busier than ever running stuff out to the ports in baltimore and miami and LA. That's stuff manufactured here in america for export, "sport", and how much shiat needs hauled around this country right now is a pretty good economic indicator.
 
2012-05-15 08:57:06 PM  
HUGRAM-

Not sure what you and your lib friends are spewing, but you have some holes in your long, attractive but not accurate post.

-Unemployment rate--any fair assessment MUST include that people have left the workforce, and the actual unemployment numbers would be above 11%. The numbers are still ridiculously high, and the spike in lower numbers are due to part-time jobs, at least according to WSJ last month.

Obama wants to increase taxes--he hasnt increased them yet....Capital gains will spike at least 5%. Estate tax will increase, along with payroll and income taxes. The travesty of his insurance policy is it will act like a tax, while some of his "friends" will get exemptions and loopholes.

Your point about a college education is noted, as almost any major is better than not having a degree at all. Working within the network that is the college environment to get a job somewhere seems to work much better than having zero skills and a high school diploma.
 
2012-05-15 09:01:11 PM  

torr5962: HUGRAM-

Not sure what you and your lib friends are spewing, but you have some holes in your long, attractive but not accurate post.

-Unemployment rate--any fair assessment MUST include that people have left the workforce, and the actual unemployment numbers would be above 11%. The numbers are still ridiculously high, and the spike in lower numbers are due to part-time jobs, at least according to WSJ last month.

Obama wants to increase taxes--he hasnt increased them yet....Capital gains will spike at least 5%. Estate tax will increase, along with payroll and income taxes. The travesty of his insurance policy is it will act like a tax, while some of his "friends" will get exemptions and loopholes.

Your point about a college education is noted, as almost any major is better than not having a degree at all. Working within the network that is the college environment to get a job somewhere seems to work much better than having zero skills and a high school diploma.


But yet you can't post his point to counter them? Must be that homeschooling that everyone keeps raving about!
 
2012-05-15 09:39:01 PM  

Weaver95: I_C_Weener: ToxicMunkee: I remember when Bush was president and I got my ass reamed because "omg, the president doesn't have control over the price of gas or the economy!"

But here we are, with Obama being blamed for not lowering gas prices or fixing the economy.

Recent article using that as the example for how people think about politics in much the same way a 4 year old thinks about their parent. And attack on any part of their political party is an attack on all!!! Facts don't matter. Political identification is purely emotional. NPR did a story on it recently, but the studies have been around for awhile.

what I don't get is how any of the Republicans can read up on Romney's actions while he was with Bain capital, then still think he's a 'good leader' for this country.


Easy. Because he made tens of millions of $$ and so will they someday so long as the communist muslim socialists don't jimmy up the works.
 
2012-05-16 05:10:46 AM  

FlashHarry: "the economy is in FAR better shape than when obama took the reins."



We have picked up an additional $5 trillion in debt in 3 years and 4 months. That's ~50% of the total of all debt we had ever run up before, and it's $1.5T/year - more than twice the rate at which GWB ran up the red ink, and over three times Reagan's deficit (adjusted for inflation).

Every single American -- young or old, gay or straight, including you -- is over $16,000 deeper in debt today than on the day of Obama's inauguration, without having personally borrowed a cent. For those of you keeping up with the student debt conversation, this is equivalent to one out of every ten Americans borrowing enough -- SINCE 2009 ALONE -- to finance an entire degree from Harvard...and blowing it all without earning a single college credit.

What does "far better shape" mean in your language?
 
2012-05-16 12:08:40 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: karnal: add 17 new taxes

Don't forget, he's also going to confiscate all our guns and enslave all White people in FEMA camps.


It's about time!

/honkey
//married a black chick so I get special dispensation
 
2012-05-16 04:13:38 PM  
Rwa2play :But yet you can't post his point to counter them? Must be that homeschooling that everyone keeps raving about!

Too lazy at that particular time. Plus, I didnt counter all of them. I agree with his college point. Just go up and look at his points that were posted twice.
 
Displayed 43 of 193 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report