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.

(Washington Post)   The Democrats' message is simple: No thoughtful person could reasonably oppose Obama. He is our one and only solution. If you think otherwise, it is a pity that you are probably a racist, selfish   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 512
    More: Obvious, President Obama, Democrats, Dana Milbank, Frank Rich, Thomas Mann, advice columnist  
•       •       •

1863 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jun 2012 at 9:44 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-22 12:33:40 PM
The conservative message is, "We really want to work with the pot-smoking socialist terrorist atheist gay Kenyan terrorist to better America, we really do, but our hands are tied. He's a pot-smoking socialist terrorist atheist gay Kenyan terrorist who doesn't understand that 'compromise' means 'do what the GOP says'".
 
2012-06-22 12:33:40 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Descartes: Rmoney is the white, old, straight candidate.

Obama isn't.

Obama is gay? You'd think that would conflict with his deeply held Islamic beliefs.


Well, he's already proven to be a zen master of doublethink since he can be an atheist, a Muslim, and a member of an America-hating church at the same time. (Triplethink?)
 
2012-06-22 12:35:19 PM

Geotpf: Everybody just needs to deal with this reality.


www.thepaltrysapien.com
A lot of people are.
 
2012-06-22 12:37:29 PM

qorkfiend: WombatControl: And the largest mid-term election loss since 1938

The party in the White House typically loses seats in Congress during the midterms, and if you pair that with an apathetic left and the Tea Party, losing 63 seats (many of which were seats won in 2006, giving rise to the same scenario we see in the Senate this year as Democrats try to hold seats in relatively conservative districts) was not particularly surprising. At the same time, the "national" Senate races went badly for the GOP as they missed two solid locks in Delaware and Nevada.

WombatControl: And it's not like the Democrats had fair warning: the Scott Brown win should have been a huge red flag that ObamaCare was a bad idea.

The Scott Brown win was a huge red flag that Martha Coakley was a terrible candidate who phoned in her campaign. The lesson is "don't take a win for granted".

WombatControl: It was a mistake because the country was worried about jobs and the economy, and Obama went for a liberal wish-list item rather than showing a laser-like focus on the economy.

Obama did the best stimulus that could be gotten through Congress. A bigger or second stimulus wasn't going to happen. What else should have been done? Do you think Democratic voters would have been happier with him if he'd punted on health care reform, which was a central issue in his campaign?


So the largest mid-term loss since 1938 wasn't a surprise? Really? That's your argument? Yes, the incumbent party usually loses some seats in a midterm, but 63 seats is massively above the average.

Yes, the GOP threw away two winnable races is NV and DE. Angle and O'Donnell were atrocious candidates better suited for more typical races where the GOP would otherwise have no chance of winning. Had Lowden and Castle been the nominee, things might have bene very different.

And yes, Coakley was a bad candidate. But the race was in Massachusetts. Under normal circumstances the Democrats should have been able to nominate a potted plant or a great white shark implanted with the brain of a child molester and still won by a good 10%. Scott Brown was a much better candidate, but he ultimately won because he was a good candidate running in a race that was winnable by a Republican because of ObamaCare.

Should Obama have abandoned ambitious health care plans? Fark yes. Bush abandoned pushing for Social Security reform even though it was a central tenet of his runs in 2000 and 2004 because it was not politically feasible to make it happen. Obama should have done the same. And no, that doesn't mean that Obama should have done another stimulus, but he could have done plenty of other things that would have made him look strong on the economy and jobs. Had he done so, 2010 would have well been very different.

The Democrats failed to learn the right lessons from 1994 - instead of pursuing an unpopular health care bill, they should have backed off. Instead the took the exact opposite lesson and doubled down on it. That failure to listen to the electorate is why they lost 63 seats in 2010 rather than something much smaller.
 
2012-06-22 12:37:42 PM

Headso: s2s2s2: Do you realize you are a shill for the two party, bought and sold, system? Because I do.

The idea of 3rd and 4th parties seems attractive but after thinking about it more you eventually come to the conclusion that they'd just be elected then corrupted by the same money.


However, it would force the money to either be increased or dilluted somewhat. As well, each of these parties would have to seek to differentiate itself from other parties. In that case, wedge issues lose some power as each party has to pretend to have a nuanced position because single issue voters might have two or more parties to vote for. The more parties you have, the less likely is it that a extremist group can garner a majority, unbreakable position in gov't. Also, the threat of Senate filibuster would likely be lessened unless a very tight alliance could be formed.
 
2012-06-22 12:38:13 PM

lennavan: Uh, all sorts of thoughtful people could reasonably oppose Obama. But no thoughtful person could reasonably vote Romney.

Given that, and we do have a two party system, he is indeed our one and only solution choice.

Context matters.


Fixed because context does indeed matter.
 
2012-06-22 12:42:09 PM

MyRandomName: It takes too much thought to notice the unsustainable growth of entitlements and debt interest. I mean, why look at a future 10 years down the road. It's not myopic to not notice Medicare spending is growing at 5% a year while gdp grows at 2%, that will never be a problem! 100% debt to gdp ratio? Pffft. Just because historically a ratio that big aligned with 2% gdp growth compared to the average of 3%...

Only one party is actually looking at the numbers and telling people there is a problem looming, and it is not the democrats. All democrats are doing is paving the road to hell with short sighted entitlement spending. It is not thoughtful, it is bribery.

The united states will survive until the day congress discovers it can bribe the people with its own money.

Even Democrats crying out for Keynes is a Damn joke. Not once have they asked for reduced spending in good times, a critical part of his theory. Sorry, democrats are nothing more than myopic morons with huge wish lists. When one analyzes projected growth and realizes we are on an unsustainable path, come get me. Not one is willing to put their career in danger by addressing the obvious.


And not one of your party's proposals to "solve" this problem actually reduces the growth of government. All they are are giveaways to high-income earners and large corporations on the backs of the poor and middle class. Even the Ryan plan increases the deficit. You've got nothing. Clapping louder doesn't change it.
 
2012-06-22 12:45:41 PM

Mercutio74: However, it would force the money to either be increased or dilluted somewhat.


I'm not sure about that. It's the same number of seats, and corps have a tendency to just buy them all out with the giant pile of money they don't use to hire people.

I always thought it would be better to let lawmakers have their already outrageous salary and benefits, but tax any lobbyist cash/benefit or campaign contribution at 70%. At least that way, when these corporations buy out our legislators the American people get a piece of the action.
 
2012-06-22 12:45:57 PM

WombatControl: Should Obama have abandoned ambitious health care plans? Fark yes. Bush abandoned pushing for Social Security reform even though it was a central tenet of his runs in 2000 and 2004 because it was not politically feasible to make it happen


There was a vote on the Filner Amendment back in 2001. In short, this amendment would have prohibited the Social Security Commission from spending money to implement the privatization plan they built. Twenty Democratic caucus members in the House voted against this amendment. In contrast, of Obama's major economic bills from his first three years (I'll include ARRA, ACA, and Dodd-Frank here), he received a grand total of ten Republican caucus votes in the House and Senate combined for these bills. If Bush wouldn't have been such a pansy-ass wuss-bag, he would almost certainly have had some bipartisan cover for privatizing Social Security.
 
2012-06-22 12:46:10 PM

s2s2s2: DarwiOdrade: Every single one of those stupid cartoons you posted in this thread.

That's not a citation, so that's two words, now. Show me how they are misrepresenting a position, instead of restating your belief as if it were a citation, please.


ok

6/22/12 - I don't believe inflated standards are the reason the right wing doesn't want to vote for Obama. What I hear from actual people who oppose Obama is "worst president ever" and "hasn't done anything to help the country get out of this recession" even though both are patently false, and they never consider that Romney may, and most likely would, be much, much worse for the country.

6/21/12 - It isn't just "racist rednecks" who have called Obama a socialist, but former presidential hopefuls and high-ranking Republicans such as Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, John McCain. Boehner said all of Obama's policies are socialist, but I don't think ever went full retard on it. Aren't these people supposed to be the "astute political observers" mentioned in the cartoon?

6/18/12 - Maybe the author of that stupid cartoon said he'd (she'd?) vote for Jill Stein, but I defy you anyone who thought that would be taking a vote away from Obama. We can even broaden the scope - find an example of anyone claiming a vote for a third party candidate would take away a vote from Obama, rather than the Republican candidate.

6/7/12 - Obama supporters I know are not generally happy with the continued military actions and erosion of civil liberties, but support Obama in spite of those things because the Republicans are much, much worse.

6/11/12 - You've already seen my response to that.

Got any other BS cartoons you want to throw out there?
 
2012-06-22 12:47:13 PM

SphericalTime: Meh, it's not even really about Obama. I don't think a thoughtful person could reasonably choose the Republican Party over the Democratic Party these days. There may be specific sets of candidates that make sense, but looking at what the Republicans have become it's obvious that overall they've chosen to put governing aside in favor of playing the most ridiculously political games that they can come up with.


Calvinball?
 
2012-06-22 12:49:03 PM

WombatControl: Yes, the incumbent party usually loses some seats in a midterm, but 63 seats is massively above the average.


The swing in 2006 was above average; any adjustment towards equilibrium from that would also probably be above average. Dissatisfaction accounts for the rest, but is not the primary cause.

WombatControl: Yes, the GOP threw away two winnable races is NV and DE. Angle and O'Donnell were atrocious candidates better suited for more typical races where the GOP would otherwise have no chance of winning. Had Lowden and Castle been the nominee, things might have bene very different.


Things would have been very different. Mike Castle is exceptionally well-liked and had extraordinarily strong ratings (something along the lines of 95% approval, IIRC) in Delaware; my relatives in Newark said all the signs in 2008 were "Obama/Biden" and "Re-elect Mike Castle", but they've got a closed primary, so yeah. But Nevada? That's similar to Massachusetts, except on the Republican side, and like Massachusetts the terrible candidate lost. Scott Brown's opposition to health care reform worked to attract national attention and money from the Tea Party, but he won by actually campaigning instead of resting on his laurels.

WombatControl: Bush abandoned pushing for Social Security reform even though it was a central tenet of his runs in 2000 and 2004 because it was not politically feasible to make it happen.


Unlike Bush's plans for Social Security, health care reform was clearly politically feasible. Social Security privatization would never have gotten through even a friendly Congress. Bush was a lame duck fresh off re-election, and his party still didn't want to push for Social Security privatization.

WombatControl: And no, that doesn't mean that Obama should have done another stimulus, but he could have done plenty of other things that would have made him look strong on the economy and jobs. Had he done so, 2010 would have well been very different.


Such as?
 
2012-06-22 12:51:43 PM

Serious Black: WombatControl: Should Obama have abandoned ambitious health care plans? Fark yes. Bush abandoned pushing for Social Security reform even though it was a central tenet of his runs in 2000 and 2004 because it was not politically feasible to make it happen

There was a vote on the Filner Amendment back in 2001. In short, this amendment would have prohibited the Social Security Commission from spending money to implement the privatization plan they built. Twenty Democratic caucus members in the House voted against this amendment. In contrast, of Obama's major economic bills from his first three years (I'll include ARRA, ACA, and Dodd-Frank here), he received a grand total of ten Republican caucus votes in the House and Senate combined for these bills. If Bush wouldn't have been such a pansy-ass wuss-bag, he would almost certainly have had some bipartisan cover for privatizing Social Security.


Could he have done it? I don't think the votes would have been there - but even assuming that he could have gotten the votes in the House and the Senate, the American people were so sharply divided on it that the midterms would have been a disaster for him. The GOP was smart enough to realize that even though Social Security privatization was probably the right policy, the politics were not in their favor.
 
2012-06-22 12:52:56 PM

Headso: s2s2s2: Do you realize you are a shill for the two party, bought and sold, system? Because I do.

The idea of 3rd and 4th parties seems attractive but after thinking about it more you eventually come to the conclusion that they'd just be elected then corrupted by the same money.


They'd be more viable in a Parliamentary system but that isn't likely to happen and has its own set of problems.
 
2012-06-22 12:53:53 PM

WombatControl: The GOP was smart enough to realize that even though Social Security privatization was probably the right policy


Yeah, we'd all be better off right now if we had given Wall St. control over Social Security in 2005.
 
2012-06-22 12:54:43 PM

s2s2s2: friday13: dood, what the fark? I had you pegged as a troll, not the real thing...

If you think I'm seriously asking that question, you need your meter checked.


Whew, scared me there...be careful next time...
 
2012-06-22 12:55:17 PM
Obama will lose and in a large part because he jumped into the fast and furious mess. He shouldn't have touched that tar baby. Thats right i said tar baby.

Brian Terrys parents. Get used to seeing them on tv. All summer. Crying for their son and asking obama why cant they get answers.

Thats obamas biggest blunder so far. He screwed the pootch on that one. He may as well go ahead and eat the pootch.
 
2012-06-22 12:56:47 PM

WombatControl: Scott Brown was a much better candidate, but he ultimately won because he was a good candidate running in a race that was winnable by a Republican because of ObamaCare.


Because the state of Massachusetts wants to repeal it's own healthcare plan?
 
2012-06-22 01:00:10 PM
I thought their election strategy was more along the lines of "Sure, Obama sucks... but look at THAT guy"
 
2012-06-22 01:06:32 PM

Esc7: You should read this:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

The word you're looking for is Authoritarian.


I'm aware of the book and the term.
 
2012-06-22 01:07:13 PM

WombatControl: Serious Black: WombatControl: Should Obama have abandoned ambitious health care plans? Fark yes. Bush abandoned pushing for Social Security reform even though it was a central tenet of his runs in 2000 and 2004 because it was not politically feasible to make it happen

There was a vote on the Filner Amendment back in 2001. In short, this amendment would have prohibited the Social Security Commission from spending money to implement the privatization plan they built. Twenty Democratic caucus members in the House voted against this amendment. In contrast, of Obama's major economic bills from his first three years (I'll include ARRA, ACA, and Dodd-Frank here), he received a grand total of ten Republican caucus votes in the House and Senate combined for these bills. If Bush wouldn't have been such a pansy-ass wuss-bag, he would almost certainly have had some bipartisan cover for privatizing Social Security.

Could he have done it? I don't think the votes would have been there - but even assuming that he could have gotten the votes in the House and the Senate, the American people were so sharply divided on it that the midterms would have been a disaster for him. The GOP was smart enough to realize that even though Social Security privatization was probably the right policy, the politics were not in their favor.


A recent AP/GfK poll asked people what they wanted Congress to do should the Supreme Court strike down ACA. More than three out of four respondents said they want Congress to start work on a brand new bill. The politics were not in Obama and the Democrats' favor almost entirely because of lies about what the bill would do, like instantiating death panels and requiring all health care professionals to beg government bureaucrats for their okay before conducting any medical procedures. I would guess that at least half of the opposition to ACA is because people have no damn idea what it will do because of a carefully coordinated misinformation campaign. Another quarter comes from people who wanted it to go farther and look more like Medicare for All.
 
2012-06-22 01:11:25 PM

s2s2s2: Geotpf: Everybody just needs to deal with this reality.

[www.thepaltrysapien.com image 585x400]
A lot of people are.


The one on the left is either enjoying the pepper spray or proof that the police were keeping it in the freezer before using it.
 
2012-06-22 01:13:51 PM

Serious Black: I would guess that at least half of the opposition to ACA is because people have no damn idea what it will do because of a carefully coordinated misinformation campaign. Another quarter comes from people who wanted it to go farther and look more like Medicare for All.


I don't think anyone in that quarter could be described as in "opposition" to ACA. More like pouting. I was against the ACA because it didn't go far enough. But now that it has passed, I sure as fark wouldn't want to repeal it. I want more legislation passed.
 
2012-06-22 01:16:19 PM
ATTENTION LIBERALS: I don't give a shiat if you call me a racist. It has absolutely no meaning or bearing on my life.

I dislike Obama btw. I will never vote for that piece of shiat
 
2012-06-22 01:16:26 PM

MyRandomName: Only one party is actually looking at the numbers and telling people there is a problem looming, and it is not the democrats.


It couldn't possibly be the party that caused the whole mess, could it? I mean, 4 years ago, Republicans didn't give a fark about the fact that their guy had run up the debt by $5 trillion, because "deficits don't matter." Never in the history of the world had a civilization cut taxes during a war, but that's quite all right, because wars and tax cuts pay for themselves these days.

Hmm, I seem to have relied more on facts than snark, so... fark off you disingenuous sack.
 
2012-06-22 01:16:29 PM

lennavan: Serious Black: I would guess that at least half of the opposition to ACA is because people have no damn idea what it will do because of a carefully coordinated misinformation campaign. Another quarter comes from people who wanted it to go farther and look more like Medicare for All.

I don't think anyone in that quarter could be described as in "opposition" to ACA. More like pouting. I was against the ACA because it didn't go far enough. But now that it has passed, I sure as fark wouldn't want to repeal it. I want more legislation passed.


Actually, there are a fair number of the public option backers who have been out decrying ACA as nothing but a giant giveaway to the insurance companies. I don't agree with that (it's certainly better than the pre-ACA system), but I'd much rather have the public option instead of a mandate to buy from private interests.
 
2012-06-22 01:17:42 PM

gearsprocket: ATTENTION LIBERALS: I don't give a shiat if you call me a racist. It has absolutely no meaning or bearing on my life.

I dislike Obama btw. I will never vote for that piece of shiat


I'm sorry, did somebody call you a racist? Other than the Post's strawman, I mean?
 
2012-06-22 01:20:19 PM

HeartBurnKid: lennavan: Serious Black: I would guess that at least half of the opposition to ACA is because people have no damn idea what it will do because of a carefully coordinated misinformation campaign. Another quarter comes from people who wanted it to go farther and look more like Medicare for All.

I don't think anyone in that quarter could be described as in "opposition" to ACA. More like pouting. I was against the ACA because it didn't go far enough. But now that it has passed, I sure as fark wouldn't want to repeal it. I want more legislation passed.

Actually, there are a fair number of the public option backers who have been out decrying ACA as nothing but a giant giveaway to the insurance companies. I don't agree with that (it's certainly better than the pre-ACA system), but I'd much rather have the public option instead of a mandate to buy from private interests.


That's pretty much where I fall at. It's not a great law by any stretch, but to plagiarize Stephen Colbert, I'd much rather eat a slice of Wonder bread than a muffin with glass shards.
 
2012-06-22 01:21:30 PM

gearsprocket: ATTENTION LIBERALS: I don't give a shiat if you call me a racist. It has absolutely no meaning or bearing on my life.

I dislike Obama btw. I will never vote for that piece of shiat


I wouldn't call you a racist. A brain-dead asshat who is the perfect poster-boy for family planning, sure. But not racist.
 
2012-06-22 01:27:09 PM

HeartBurnKid: lennavan: Serious Black: I would guess that at least half of the opposition to ACA is because people have no damn idea what it will do because of a carefully coordinated misinformation campaign. Another quarter comes from people who wanted it to go farther and look more like Medicare for All.

I don't think anyone in that quarter could be described as in "opposition" to ACA. More like pouting. I was against the ACA because it didn't go far enough. But now that it has passed, I sure as fark wouldn't want to repeal it. I want more legislation passed.

Actually, there are a fair number of the public option backers who have been out decrying ACA as nothing but a giant giveaway to the insurance companies. I don't agree with that (it's certainly better than the pre-ACA system), but I'd much rather have the public option instead of a mandate to buy from private interests.


I would as well. And that's a fair point, there are people who feel that way. I agree with the sentiment behind the thought but the 85% requirement kinda makes it seem silly. Still, the only people in that group I can imagine wanting to actually repeal because they oppose Obamacare are the ones who did not have insurance before and do not want it. I imagine that's a pretty farking small group of irresponsible 20 year olds who think they're invincible and when they crash their cars they want me to pay.
 
2012-06-22 01:28:14 PM

gearsprocket: me a racist


Noted.

/breitbarted
 
2012-06-22 01:31:54 PM

Geotpf: mrshowrules: Geotpf: If the economy improves signficantly in the coming months, Obama will win in a landslide.

If the recovery remains weak or even if the economy dips slightly, I think Obama takes it. If it tanks, he loses.

I agree. The economy will have to really go in the tank for Obama to lose. Romney is a very non-charismatic candidate with little actual support behind him (except for Mormons who mostly live in non-swing states). The power of incumbency is strong.


If I'm right, I called it back in 2009. I always thought Americans were a bit naive to expect a full and rapid recovery. I posted something to the effect that Obama would probably get re-elected even the jobless rate never dropped below 8%. Most people think he his is competent and at least sympathetic to Americans other than the rich.

Americans are astonishingly proficient and voting against their own self-interests but that might finally have reached the theoretical limit.
 
2012-06-22 01:32:12 PM

Serious Black: HeartBurnKid: lennavan: Serious Black: I would guess that at least half of the opposition to ACA is because people have no damn idea what it will do because of a carefully coordinated misinformation campaign. Another quarter comes from people who wanted it to go farther and look more like Medicare for All.

I don't think anyone in that quarter could be described as in "opposition" to ACA. More like pouting. I was against the ACA because it didn't go far enough. But now that it has passed, I sure as fark wouldn't want to repeal it. I want more legislation passed.

Actually, there are a fair number of the public option backers who have been out decrying ACA as nothing but a giant giveaway to the insurance companies. I don't agree with that (it's certainly better than the pre-ACA system), but I'd much rather have the public option instead of a mandate to buy from private interests.

That's pretty much where I fall at. It's not a great law by any stretch, but to plagiarizeparaphrase Stephen Colbert, I'd much rather eat a slice of Wonder bread than a muffin with glass shards.


You gave credit. That's the exact opposite of plagarization.
 
2012-06-22 01:32:26 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-06-22 01:35:03 PM
The one thing that Obama did, in my opinion, is fail to go in with guns blazing and take those republican tea bag assholes by the throat and tell them like it was gonna be. I think everyone who voted for him hoped for that, but it never happened.
Of course he's a better choice than Rmoney, case closed.
 
2012-06-22 01:35:08 PM

One Big Ass Mistake America: [i.imgur.com image 640x498]


PLEASE NOTE: We'll stop blaming Bush when you stop running on his ideas.

- LOLGOP (@LOLGOP) June 22, 2012
 
2012-06-22 01:36:16 PM

One Big Ass Mistake America: [i.imgur.com image 640x498]

That's because the Democrats didn't haraung the fark out of him about it.
 
2012-06-22 01:36:50 PM

One Big Ass Mistake America: [i.imgur.com image 640x498]


Did you really know that Authoritarian Collectivist Usurper-for-life and PresiDebt Taxbongo HUSSEIN ObaMarx al-Chicago was more evil than the combined evil of Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Vladmir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Josef Mengele, Vlad the Impaler, Emperor Hirohito, Ivan the Terrible, King Leopold II, Idi Amin, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Attila the Hun, Elizabeth Bathory, Irma Grese, Queen Isabella, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, the Zodiac Killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, Albert Fish, Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine, Lord Voldemort, Sauron, Hannibal Lecter, Vito and Michael Corleone, Nurse Ratched, Joffrey Baratheon, Aerys Targaryan, Magneto, Lex Luthor, the Joker, Galactus, Thanos, Davros, the Master, Rassilon, Cthulhu, Beelzebub, and Satan all tetrated to the hyperpower of Graham's number less than two months after he was inaugurated?
 
2012-06-22 01:37:51 PM
No, subtard, but none of the Seven Dwarfs of the Republican Primary are better, nor even equal.
 
2012-06-22 01:37:59 PM

FrailChild: The government is not responsible for hiring people and keeping them employed!!! The government should be more interested in creating an environment where the private sector can thirve.

This is typical of what happens across the country... private sector tanks & government stays the same or keeps growing... government is always hiring meaning there are less people paying in taxes to keep the public sector afloat.


I don't even know what to do with the steaming pile of derp you just dropped here. First of all, what does this even mean?

"government is always hiring meaning there are less people paying in taxes"

Are you somehow suggesting that people who receive their paycheck from the government are exempt from income taxes?

But this is even better:

"The government should be more interested in creating an environment where the private sector can thirve."
"government is always hiring meaning there are less people paying in taxes to keep the public sector afloat."

Is it the government's job to stay out of the way, or is it the government's job to subsidize? It can't be both.
 
2012-06-22 01:38:38 PM

Serious Black: One Big Ass Mistake America: [i.imgur.com image 640x498]

Did you really know that Authoritarian Collectivist Usurper-for-life and PresiDebt Taxbongo HUSSEIN ObaMarx al-Chicago was more evil than the combined evil of Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Vladmir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Josef Mengele, Vlad the Impaler, Emperor Hirohito, Ivan the Terrible, King Leopold II, Idi Amin, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Attila the Hun, Elizabeth Bathory, Irma Grese, Queen Isabella, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, the Zodiac Killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, Albert Fish, Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine, Lord Voldemort, Sauron, Hannibal Lecter, Vito and Michael Corleone, Nurse Ratched, Joffrey Baratheon, Aerys Targaryan, Magneto, Lex Luthor, the Joker, Galactus, Thanos, Davros, the Master, Rassilon, Cthulhu, Beelzebub, and Satan all tetrated to the hyperpower of Graham's number less than two months after he was inaugurated?


Great Ceasar's Ghost! It's Francis Dec's ghost!
 
2012-06-22 01:39:03 PM

The_Sponge: Weaver95: or Romney who's a hard right wing religious cultist with a track record of both vulture AND crony capitalism as well as an expressed love of dominionist theocracy....


Oh please...Romney is a moderate Republican.


thatsthejoke.jpg
 
2012-06-22 01:41:39 PM

gearsprocket: I don't give a shiat if you call me a racist


Okay. I guess if you give me reason to I will then.... thanks for the heads up, I guess... not really sure what the point of your post was, otherwise, though.
 
2012-06-22 01:45:41 PM

qorkfiend: WombatControl: Yes, the incumbent party usually loses some seats in a midterm, but 63 seats is massively above the average.

The swing in 2006 was above average; any adjustment towards equilibrium from that would also probably be above average. Dissatisfaction accounts for the rest, but is not the primary cause.

WombatControl: Yes, the GOP threw away two winnable races is NV and DE. Angle and O'Donnell were atrocious candidates better suited for more typical races where the GOP would otherwise have no chance of winning. Had Lowden and Castle been the nominee, things might have bene very different.

Things would have been very different. Mike Castle is exceptionally well-liked and had extraordinarily strong ratings (something along the lines of 95% approval, IIRC) in Delaware; my relatives in Newark said all the signs in 2008 were "Obama/Biden" and "Re-elect Mike Castle", but they've got a closed primary, so yeah. But Nevada? That's similar to Massachusetts, except on the Republican side, and like Massachusetts the terrible candidate lost. Scott Brown's opposition to health care reform worked to attract national attention and money from the Tea Party, but he won by actually campaigning instead of resting on his laurels.

WombatControl: Bush abandoned pushing for Social Security reform even though it was a central tenet of his runs in 2000 and 2004 because it was not politically feasible to make it happen.

Unlike Bush's plans for Social Security, health care reform was clearly politically feasible. Social Security privatization would never have gotten through even a friendly Congress. Bush was a lame duck fresh off re-election, and his party still didn't want to push for Social Security privatization.

WombatControl: And no, that doesn't mean that Obama should have done another stimulus, but he could have done plenty of other things that would have made him look strong on the economy and jobs. Had he done so, 2010 would have well been very different.

Such as?


Take a look at the 2010 exit polls - because they tell a very clear story about why the Democrats lost.
 
2012-06-22 01:46:08 PM

DarwiOdrade: Got any other BS cartoons you want to throw out there?


No, that is plenty enough evidence that you still don't know what a strawman is.
 
2012-06-22 01:46:45 PM

One Big Ass Mistake America: [i.imgur.com image 640x498]


Hey - he's right.

He also spent his second term blaming Jimmy Carter.
 
2012-06-22 01:47:01 PM
Submitter: No thoughtful person could reasonably oppose Obama.

If that is your contention, fine. Now show me where all the "thoughtful...reasonable" opponents of the President are. I certainly haven't seen any candidates from the other parties that would qualify, with the possible exceptions of Gov. Huntsman and Gov. Johnson who were essentially drummed out by their own party.
 
2012-06-22 01:48:57 PM

s2s2s2: DarwiOdrade: Got any other BS cartoons you want to throw out there?

No, that is plenty enough evidence that you still don't know what a strawman is.


So no positions were misrepresented and those misrepresentations argued against in those cartoons? Really? Are you a liar or just that stupid?
 
2012-06-22 01:50:31 PM

DarwiOdrade: s2s2s2: DarwiOdrade: Got any other BS cartoons you want to throw out there?

No, that is plenty enough evidence that you still don't know what a strawman is.

So no positions were misrepresented and those misrepresentations argued against in those cartoons? Really? Are you a liar or just that stupid?


Are you not familiar with the troll?
 
2012-06-22 01:53:25 PM

DarwiOdrade: I don't believe inflated standards are the reason the right wing


It's a liberal comic. It argues for more liberal values in politics. Strike one.

DarwiOdrade: It isn't just


No one said it was.

DarwiOdrade: but I defy you anyone who thought that would be taking a vote away from Obama


So you are stating that Jill Stein is more likely to pull voters away from Romney?

DarwiOdrade: Obama supporters I know


Yeah, I don't know all the liberals in the politics tab, either. But I have seen enough examples to prove your point here wrong. Lots of apologetics, especially in the last few days.
 
Displayed 50 of 512 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report