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.

(Chicago Sun-Times)   President Obama has eroded the American dream, he was willing to take on Republican "obstructionism" in the name of a long-cherished liberal goal of overhauling the health-care industry but not to combat the unemployment crisis   (suntimes.com) divider line 166
    More: Fail, President Obama, American Dream, GOP, obstructionism, unemployment crisis, Olympia Snowe, health cares, John McCain  
•       •       •

1398 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Oct 2012 at 3:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-30 10:52:25 AM
Sky blue, water wet?
 
2012-10-30 11:10:22 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Sky blue, water wet?


... and the GOP still lying.
 
2012-10-30 11:23:46 AM
Of course, if he had been open to working across the aisle, to accepting conservative fiscal ideas, the president could have picked off some moderate Republican senators - for example Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins of Maine, who voted for the $831 billion stimulus package - for further economy-bolstering measures. But no, in discussing the stimulus bill with Sen. John McCain, the 2008 defeated GOP nominee, and other Republicans at the White House in early 2009, Obama made clear his view was all that counted when he said, "I won" the election.

Funny thing, $282B of that are tax cuts for 94.3% of workers and small business. Or is that not a conservative ideal?

During a debate, Obama said he advocated increasing the capital gains tax even when told lower rates produce more revenues by encouraging investments in the economy.

This has no basis in historical fact, or the current environment.


McConnell: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."


/EABOD & your blog sucks
 
2012-10-30 11:26:12 AM
He sure took on Republican obstructionism when he copied Republican ideas for "Obamacare"
 
2012-10-30 11:34:33 AM

PreMortem: During a debate, Obama said he advocated increasing the capital gains tax even when told lower rates produce more revenues by encouraging investments in the economy.

This has no basis in historical fact, or the current environment.


I told him that Gangnam Style was an elaborate Korean rain dance, but he didn't listen to that either. Who's sitting under a yard of water now, huh?
 
2012-10-30 11:35:07 AM
Funny how we place the blame on the guy who tried to overcome obstructionism instead of the ones creating the obstructions.

GOP: This is what we want. These are our ideas.

Obama: OK. Here. We can do that.

GOP: Obama not cooperating!!!

Fark that noise.
 
2012-10-30 11:37:16 AM
So you're saying government can create jobs?
 
2012-10-30 11:48:53 AM
1) the healthcare passed because dems then controlled the house
2) the jobs bill has not passed because republicans now control the house
 
2012-10-30 11:49:29 AM
whoops. that's healthcare bill.
 
2012-10-30 11:55:26 AM
Maybe voters need to step up against Republican obstructionism as well and not vote Republican anymore until they start acting like sensible people.
 
2012-10-30 11:59:35 AM
Republican strategy for dummies: "We're not going to let you fix this, we're not going to let you fix this, we're not going to let you fix this, we're not going to let you fix this, we're not going to let you fix this... WHY HAVEN'T YOU FIXED THIS YET?!?!"
 
2012-10-30 12:00:12 PM
I have been repeatedly informed by multiple sources that the government can't create jobs.

Wait, is that not what we believe this week?
 
2012-10-30 12:06:01 PM
Stupid Obama, why does he intentionally limit himself to the specific powers delegated to the President by the Constitution. He should just declare himself absolute monarch and change everything by royal decree.
 
2012-10-30 12:11:52 PM
voices.washingtonpost.com
 
2012-10-30 12:14:24 PM

Freudian_slipknot: I have been repeatedly informed by multiple sources that the government can't create jobs.

Wait, is that not what we believe this week?


That's the story Nov. 7th... until then everyone (who is an R) is treating you like you just had a frontal lobotomy.
 
2012-10-30 12:14:49 PM
Republican "obstructionism"?

More like: REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTIONISM
 
2012-10-30 12:18:43 PM

FlashHarry: 1) the healthcare passed because dems then controlled the house
2) the jobs bill has not passed because republicans now control the house


Stop pissing on the narrative!
 
2012-10-30 12:28:16 PM

GAT_00: So you're saying government can create jobs?


The government can create jobs by the millions--it's called a military draft. It can also hire a bunch a bureaucrats for new agencies that are questionable as to whether or not they should actually exist.

The problem is that no matter whether those being employed are military personnel, bureaucrats, or temporary construction workers building a new dam or a highway, the tax payers pay for them, either directly through salaries and benefits or indirectly through contracts to private industry.

What is clear however is that the best jobs, the ones that really make the economy grow, the ones that are the true measure of a nation are not government jobs, nor tax payer funded projects. They are private sectors jobs that create products, services, etc. for the private sector.
 
2012-10-30 12:40:42 PM

GAT_00: So you're saying government can create jobs?


The president can't create jobs, but it's his fault that the jobs aren't created.

Nope, still doesn't sound convincing even if I say it myself.
 
2012-10-30 12:41:10 PM
Wait, I thought that Obama shrunk the government. Aren't there less government workers now?

I don't know what to believe!
 
2012-10-30 12:41:19 PM

hdhale: GAT_00: So you're saying government can create jobs?

The government can create jobs by the millions--it's called a military draft. It can also hire a bunch a bureaucrats for new agencies that are questionable as to whether or not they should actually exist.

The problem is that no matter whether those being employed are military personnel, bureaucrats, or temporary construction workers building a new dam or a highway, the tax payers pay for them, either directly through salaries and benefits or indirectly through contracts to private industry.

What is clear however is that the best jobs, the ones that really make the economy grow, the ones that are the true measure of a nation are not government jobs, nor tax payer funded projects. They are private sectors jobs that create products, services, etc. for the private sector.


Yet cutting military spending is somehow bad because it costs jobs.
 
2012-10-30 12:45:36 PM

hdhale: GAT_00: So you're saying government can create jobs?

The government can create jobs by the millions--it's called a military draft. It can also hire a bunch a bureaucrats for new agencies that are questionable as to whether or not they should actually exist.

The problem is that no matter whether those being employed are military personnel, bureaucrats, or temporary construction workers building a new dam or a highway, the tax payers pay for them, either directly through salaries and benefits or indirectly through contracts to private industry.

What is clear however is that the best jobs, the ones that really make the economy grow, the ones that are the true measure of a nation are not government jobs, nor tax payer funded projects. They are private sectors jobs that create products, services, etc. for the private sector.


And yet, getting Americans to purchase items from Fred's Hardware as opposed to Walmart or Lowe's (cause it's cheaper) and then get pissed off when Fred's hardware closes and lays off your sniveling brother-in-law and now he's living with you. And you can blame it on Obama and his "high taxes", when in fact the fault lies directly in your hands because you didn't patronise the small business.
 
2012-10-30 12:54:28 PM

silo123j: hdhale: GAT_00: So you're saying government can create jobs?

The government can create jobs by the millions--it's called a military draft. It can also hire a bunch a bureaucrats for new agencies that are questionable as to whether or not they should actually exist.

The problem is that no matter whether those being employed are military personnel, bureaucrats, or temporary construction workers building a new dam or a highway, the tax payers pay for them, either directly through salaries and benefits or indirectly through contracts to private industry.

What is clear however is that the best jobs, the ones that really make the economy grow, the ones that are the true measure of a nation are not government jobs, nor tax payer funded projects. They are private sectors jobs that create products, services, etc. for the private sector.

And yet, getting Americans to purchase items from Fred's Hardware as opposed to Walmart or Lowe's (cause it's cheaper) and then get pissed off when Fred's hardware closes and lays off your sniveling brother-in-law and now he's living with you. And you can blame it on Obama and his "high taxes", when in fact the fault lies directly in your hands because you didn't patronise the small business.


Also, how is it Obama's fault that hiring isn't higher when business profits are at all time highs and are 75% higher than 4 years ago? Clearly the business climate isn't actually bad. You can't have record high profits and say the President is bad for business.
 
2012-10-30 12:55:04 PM
Oh boy, Main Page! This will be a fun thread.



For me to poop on.
 
2012-10-30 12:57:32 PM

silo123j: hdhale: GAT_00: So you're saying government can create jobs?

The government can create jobs by the millions--it's called a military draft. It can also hire a bunch a bureaucrats for new agencies that are questionable as to whether or not they should actually exist.

The problem is that no matter whether those being employed are military personnel, bureaucrats, or temporary construction workers building a new dam or a highway, the tax payers pay for them, either directly through salaries and benefits or indirectly through contracts to private industry.

What is clear however is that the best jobs, the ones that really make the economy grow, the ones that are the true measure of a nation are not government jobs, nor tax payer funded projects. They are private sectors jobs that create products, services, etc. for the private sector.

And yet, getting Americans to purchase items from Fred's Hardware as opposed to Walmart or Lowe's (cause it's cheaper) and then get pissed off when Fred's hardware closes and lays off your sniveling brother-in-law and now he's living with you. And you can blame it on Obama and his "high taxes", when in fact the fault lies directly in your hands because you didn't patronise the small business.


This. So much this. If CA has any psychological fault to it, it is that the peons here are dumber enough to think that shopping box stores help to create jobs. Because, you know, America needs more cashiers...
 
2012-10-30 01:08:37 PM

hdhale: GAT_00: So you're saying government can create jobs?

The government can create jobs by the millions--it's called a military draft. It can also hire a bunch a bureaucrats for new agencies that are questionable as to whether or not they should actually exist.

The problem is that no matter whether those being employed are military personnel, bureaucrats, or temporary construction workers building a new dam or a highway, the tax payers pay for them, either directly through salaries and benefits or indirectly through contracts to private industry.

What is clear however is that the best jobs, the ones that really make the economy grow, the ones that are the true measure of a nation are not government jobs, nor tax payer funded projects. They are private sectors jobs that create products, services, etc. for the private sector.



Obama proposed tax breaks for companies that bring back jobs they have shipped overseas. Republicans said NO.

Senate Dems proposed a Veterans Job Bill, Republicans said NO 

Gov't can encourage private sector job growth. It appears however that republicans do not want any job creation on Obama's watch. It also appears that republicans don't mind screwing the country if they can get a super-majority. (for anti-abortion laws I'm guessing)
 
2012-10-30 01:11:41 PM
Oh and by the way, giving a click through on a website you like is another way... even if you are shelling out 5 bucks a month.

\now if they would go back to American apparel instead of the local shooting range (wtf?) I would do a click through.
 
2012-10-30 01:30:22 PM
Don't blame 0bama.
He fought for the only thing he knew how to do, tell companies to do things differently, and tax people who don't buy insurance.

He never had a clue about how to fix the economy.

We had two Summers of Recoveries.
Shovel ready jobs that did nothing.
Cash for clunkers which did nothing
Investments in green jobs which did nothing but lose money.
We had Biden saying we are getting 500k jobs a month last year.
 
2012-10-30 01:41:26 PM

PreMortem: Of course, if he had been open to working across the aisle, to accepting conservative fiscal ideas, the president could have picked off some moderate Republican senators - for example Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins of Maine, who voted for the $831 billion stimulus package - for further economy-bolstering measures. But no, in discussing the stimulus bill with Sen. John McCain, the 2008 defeated GOP nominee, and other Republicans at the White House in early 2009, Obama made clear his view was all that counted when he said, "I won" the election.

Funny thing, $282B of that are tax cuts for 94.3% of workers and small business. Or is that not a conservative ideal?

During a debate, Obama said he advocated increasing the capital gains tax even when told lower rates produce more revenues by encouraging investments in the economy.

This has no basis in historical fact, or the current environment.


McConnell: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."


/EABOD & your blog sucks


THIS

Corporate America took this statement as a call to action and they have done everything within their power to make it a possibility.

Companies sit on $2T as economy tanks - NYPOST.com
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-30 02:04:41 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Sky blue, water wet?


Yes. He hasn't been as tough the GOP as they deserve. A president should be more willing to confront the nations enemies.
 
2012-10-30 02:07:48 PM
PreMortem: During a debate, Obama said he advocated increasing the capital gains tax even when told lower rates produce more revenues by encouraging investments in the economy.

This has no basis in historical fact, or the current environment.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894&feature=related
 
2012-10-30 02:09:33 PM

Beerguy: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president


Oh look, you are being dishonest again:

why don't you have the whole quote? Politifact laughs at your characterization.

"If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he's willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it's not inappropriate for us to do business with him."

Wow, he wanted 0bama to meet him halfway! History's greatest monster.
 
2012-10-30 02:10:01 PM
I thought the American dream is that every Sunday you get drunk and watch football and eat corndogs and nachos? At least for me it is.

American dream is doing just fine.
 
2012-10-30 02:16:37 PM
During the 2008 campaign, voters heard Obama promise to end the bitter partisan and cynical politics of Washington. Looks like that was one campaign promise where the president couldn't be trusted to deliver.

Limbaugh has been hammering this point home for a couple weeks now. its downright weird.
 
2012-10-30 02:23:31 PM
IF ONLY OBAMA PASSED A STIMULUS BILL!!!!

Oh wait...
 
2012-10-30 02:36:16 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Beerguy: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president

Oh look, you are being dishonest again:

why don't you have the whole quote? Politifact laughs at your characterization.

"If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he's willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it's not inappropriate for us to do business with him."

Wow, he wanted 0bama to meet him halfway! History's greatest monster.



Show me one instance where House republicans have moved towards Obama on an agenda bill, let alone half way. Obama offering up $3T in cuts for $1T in revenue is more than half way, it's three fourths.

Grover Norquist waits for your response.
 
2012-10-30 02:43:43 PM
We are going to be inundated with this repetitive newspaper endorsement garbage the whole rest of the week, aren't we...
 
2012-10-30 02:44:31 PM
During the 2008 campaign, voters heard Obama promise to end the bitter partisan and cynical politics of Washington. Looks like that was one campaign promise where the president couldn't be trusted to deliver.


Yes, that was one promise he failed to keep. There are others as well...

Close Gitmo
Cut the deficit in half
Earmark reform
Keep unemployment below 7%
Pass cap and trade
Introduce comprehensive immigration reform
Post all pending legislation online for five days
No Super pac money
Sign the Freedom of Choice Act
End Bush tax cuts
No jobs for lobbyists
Televise healthcare debates on C-Span
Ease racial tensions in America 

/He could have accomplished most of these promises without any GOP assistance
 
2012-10-30 02:49:43 PM

FlashHarry: 1) the healthcare passed because dems then controlled the house
2) the jobs bill has not passed because republicans now control the house


And Harry Reid still runs the Senate
 
2012-10-30 02:52:17 PM

bdub77: We are going to be inundated with this repetitive newspaper endorsement garbage the whole rest of the week, aren't we...


Probably. Seems to be the norm as of the last few days. I guess nothing else is going on. Right?
 
2012-10-30 02:52:36 PM

EnviroDude: FlashHarry: 1) the healthcare passed because dems then controlled the house
2) the jobs bill has not passed because republicans now control the house

And Harry Reid still runs the Senate


And crispy, buttery toast is still delicious.
 
2012-10-30 02:53:55 PM

Il Douchey: /He could have accomplished most of these promises without any GOP assistance

Close Gitmo - Requires Congressional assistance (who controls House?)
Cut the deficit in half - Requires Congressional assistance (who controls House?)
Earmark reform - Requires Congressional assistance (who controls House?)
Keep unemployment below 7% - When he got into office it was already 7.8% and getting rapidly worse - he can't keep unemployment below 7% when it's already below 7% - not a failed promise, an impossible task - if he promised it in 2008 before the economy tanked under Bush, guess what, it doesn't count.
Pass cap and trade - Requires Congressional assistance (who controls House?)
Introduce comprehensive immigration reform
Post all pending legislation online for five days - Requires Congressional assistance (who controls House?)
No Super pac money - Supreme Court decision (who controls SCOTUS?)
Sign the Freedom of Choice Act - Requires Congressional assistance (who controls House?)
End Bush tax cuts - Didn't cut taxes due to recession his first two years - every economist on earth agreed with extending tax cuts at the time. After that, requires Congressional assistance (who controls House?)
No jobs for lobbyists - Requires Congressional assistance (who controls House?)
Televise healthcare debates on C-Span - I have no idea what is required for this, but the healthcare arguments in Congress were in fact televised.
Ease racial tensions in America - LOL this is a joke right? How do you even f*cking measure this? 

Anyone with a clue about how Congress operated from 2009-2010, with a lack of a clear majority for much of this time and pending healthcare legislation, knows that your whole argument is full of sh*t.

The first two years, Obama passed a TON of legislation. The failed promises were mostly lower priority items he couldn't get done the second half of his term due to GOP obstructionism.

You are an idiot for even bringing this up.
 
2012-10-30 02:57:23 PM

Il Douchey: During the 2008 campaign, voters heard Obama promise to end the bitter partisan and cynical politics of Washington. Looks like that was one campaign promise where the president couldn't be trusted to deliver.


Yes, that was one promise he failed to keep. There are others as well...

Close Gitmo
Cut the deficit in half
Earmark reform
Keep unemployment below 7%
Pass cap and trade
Introduce comprehensive immigration reform
Post all pending legislation online for five days
No Super pac money
Sign the Freedom of Choice Act
End Bush tax cuts
No jobs for lobbyists
Televise healthcare debates on C-Span
Ease racial tensions in America 

/He could have accomplished most of these promises without any GOP assistance


Well since most of these cannot be done by executive decree, um... you're wrong. You HAVE to have Congress to get the work done. Both halves. And what the fark is ease racial tensions in america? When did he say he would do that? how the hell do you measure something like that?

You're nothing but a useless troll. Why don't you add something to the conversation instead of attention whoring yourself all over the place...

\dammit now i am pissed
\\someone is wrong on the internet
 
2012-10-30 02:58:28 PM
bdub77

Great minds...
 
2012-10-30 03:01:55 PM

PreMortem: tenpoundsofcheese: Beerguy: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president

Oh look, you are being dishonest again:

why don't you have the whole quote? Politifact laughs at your characterization.

"If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he's willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it's not inappropriate for us to do business with him."

Wow, he wanted 0bama to meet him halfway! History's greatest monster.


Show me one instance where House republicans have moved towards Obama on an agenda bill,



Sure, first tell me what an "agenda bill" is.
 
2012-10-30 03:08:24 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Sure, first tell me what an "agenda bill" is.


Something that doesn't involve naming a post office or honoring the Boy Scouts for 60 years of raping children.
 
2012-10-30 03:09:15 PM

Il Douchey: PreMortem: During a debate, Obama said he advocated increasing the capital gains tax even when told lower rates produce more revenues by encouraging investments in the economy.

This has no basis in historical fact, or the current environment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894&feature=related


don't use facts, it just gets them mad.

remember "fairness" is more important than a healthy and growing economy.
 
2012-10-30 03:13:50 PM

bdub77: tenpoundsofcheese: Sure, first tell me what an "agenda bill" is.

Something that doesn't involve naming a post office or honoring the Boy Scouts for 60 years of raping children.


you do know that 0bama is the honorary President of the Boy Scouts and has praised them. what does that tell you?
 
2012-10-30 03:16:05 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Il Douchey: PreMortem: During a debate, Obama said he advocated increasing the capital gains tax even when told lower rates produce more revenues by encouraging investments in the economy.

This has no basis in historical fact, or the current environment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894&feature=related

don't use facts, it just gets them mad.

remember "fairness" is more important than a healthy and growing economy.



Conservative Ben Stein laughs at your "raising taxes lowers revenue" Lie.
 
2012-10-30 03:17:39 PM

PreMortem: tenpoundsofcheese: Beerguy: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president

Oh look, you are being dishonest again:

why don't you have the whole quote? Politifact laughs at your characterization.

"If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he's willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it's not inappropriate for us to do business with him."

Wow, he wanted 0bama to meet him halfway! History's greatest monster.


Show me one instance where House republicans have moved towards Obama on an agenda bill,

.


1. The HIRE act.
2. Approving the 0bama tax cuts (formerly known as the Bush Tax Cuts)
 
2012-10-30 03:24:59 PM
PreMortem: Conservative Ben Stein laughs at your "raising taxes lowers revenue" Lie.

You have it exactly backwards. The argument that Obama was disputing in the video is that lowering taxes raises revenue. This has basis in historical fact, as both Clinton and W increased revenues when they lowered the cap gains tax rate
 
2012-10-30 03:42:19 PM

Il Douchey: PreMortem: Conservative Ben Stein laughs at your "raising taxes lowers revenue" Lie.

You have it exactly backwards. The argument that Obama was disputing in the video is that lowering taxes raises revenue. This has basis in historical fact, as both Clinton and W increased revenues when they lowered the cap gains tax rate


Income didn't rise back to pre-Bush tax cut levels until 2007, and that wasn't controlling for inflation. If you control for inflation, the year of highest revenue was 2001.

Tax cuts do not create revenue.
 
2012-10-30 03:46:13 PM

Il Douchey: PreMortem: Conservative Ben Stein laughs at your "raising taxes lowers revenue" Lie.

You have it exactly backwards. The argument that Obama was disputing in the video is that lowering taxes raises revenue. This has basis in historical fact, as both Clinton and W increased revenues when they lowered the cap gains tax rate


Your VP candidate and economic dork disagrees:

"I wouldn't say that correlation is causation," Mr. Ryan replied. "I would say Clinton had the tech-productivity boom, which was enormous. Trade barriers were going down in the Clinton years. He had the peace dividend he was enjoying."

Important part emboldened for you. 

As for Ws revenues, it's now evident that tax revenues would have been even higher without his tax cuts.
 
2012-10-30 03:46:56 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: bdub77: tenpoundsofcheese: Sure, first tell me what an "agenda bill" is.

Something that doesn't involve naming a post office or honoring the Boy Scouts for 60 years of raping children.

you do know that 0bama is the honorary President of the Boy Scouts and has praised them. what does that tell you?


Nothing. You veered off the original question. Here let me put it in bold: "Show me one instance where House republicans have moved towards Obama on an agenda bill"
 
2012-10-30 03:56:09 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: 2. Approving the 0bama tax cuts (formerly known as the Bush Tax Cuts)


So passing something that the Republicans always wanted 100% to you is "compromise"?
 
2012-10-30 03:57:05 PM
I come to FARK for snarky headlines. Not derpy op-eds quoted verbatum.
 
2012-10-30 03:58:18 PM
GOP jobs bills vs. GOP penis-goes-where-rape-wand bills
 
2012-10-30 03:58:20 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: PreMortem: tenpoundsofcheese: Beerguy: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president

Oh look, you are being dishonest again:

why don't you have the whole quote? Politifact laughs at your characterization.

"If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he's willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it's not inappropriate for us to do business with him."

Wow, he wanted 0bama to meet him halfway! History's greatest monster.


Show me one instance where House republicans have moved towards Obama on an agenda bill,

1. The HIRE act.
2. Approving the 0bama tax cuts (formerly known as the Bush Tax Cuts)


The HIRE act was negotiated back and forth between the House and Senate for a year before the Republicans finally agreed to pass it in March 2010 after they took over the House. It's a pretty modest and centrist plan and should hardly be a source of controversy. The fact that this is the sole compromise you can come up with is pretty telling.

The Obama tax cuts? The Republicans only agreed to vote yes because the Democrats caved to their position since they didn't have 60 votes to end the tax incentives for those making more than 250K while preserving the lesser tax cuts.
 
2012-10-30 03:58:51 PM
All the proof you libtards need to see is all the jobs bills that were passed right after the 2010 republican victories in the house.
 
2012-10-30 03:59:53 PM
Modmins just sucking off all the red state sites. Taking it deep for those precious clicks. Gotta greenlight absolute trash!
 
2012-10-30 04:00:21 PM
i935.photobucket.com

F*ck you, subs.
 
2012-10-30 04:01:13 PM

Citrate1007: GOP jobs bills vs. GOP penis-goes-where-rape-wand bills


What is "Column B is larger", Alex.
 
2012-10-30 04:02:01 PM
Ah yes, Editorializer Steve Huntley, otherwise known as "Krauthammer, but for idiots".
 
2012-10-30 04:03:42 PM

RedPhoenix122: GAT_00: So you're saying government can create jobs?

The president can't create jobs, but it's his fault that the jobs aren't created.

Nope, still doesn't sound convincing even if I say it myself.


Well, the presence of a black man can make lots of white people put a hand on their wallets which results in them not opening them and spending. Hence lowered consumption, and consumption creates jobs which fill the demand.
 
2012-10-30 04:04:07 PM

Diogenes: Funny how we place the blame on the guy who tried to overcome obstructionism instead of the ones creating the obstructions.


Thread over.
 
2012-10-30 04:04:17 PM
During a debate, Obama said he advocated increasing the capital gains tax even when told lower rates produce more revenues by encouraging investments in the economy.

I was going to invest this $1000 at 10%, but because I might net $70 per year instead of $80 per year after taxes, I have decided to leave it in my mattress. This is what makes me a smart investor.

Thanks a lot, Fartbama.
 
2012-10-30 04:05:21 PM
Ugh...

Yeah the Republicans have been hard at work creating jobs since they took Obama's slightly blue congress away from him. Jobs in the high growth sectors of black market abortionists and rape counselors of course. But a job's a job eh?
 
2012-10-30 04:05:50 PM
i165.photobucket.com

"If that dagburn Dimmycrat varmint is FER it, AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH'M AGIN it!"
 
2012-10-30 04:06:48 PM
How do we know "the unemployment crisis" wasnt fabricated to end the "long cherished Liberal goal of overhauling the health care industry"?
 
2012-10-30 04:07:22 PM

birchman: Diogenes: Funny how we place the blame on the guy who tried to overcome obstructionism instead of the ones creating the obstructions.

Thread over.


Quit hitting yourself.
 
2012-10-30 04:07:52 PM
Please stop quoting the dairy product. I beg you.
 
2012-10-30 04:08:24 PM

Rapmaster2000: During a debate, Obama said he advocated increasing the capital gains tax even when told lower rates produce more revenues by encouraging investments in the economy.

I was going to invest this $1000 at 10%, but because I might net $70 per year instead of $80 per year after taxes, I have decided to leave it in my mattress. This is what makes me a smart investor.

Thanks a lot, Fartbama.


Yeah, but if the stock market was tanking then they wouldn't get any return on their... (checks stock market since 1/20/09).... yeah, what a load of bullshiat.

Seriously, between the "uncertainty" argument and this crap, it's amazing the delis throughout Brooklyn haven't revolted and said "Just everyone STFU, WE GOT THIS!"
 
2012-10-30 04:08:35 PM

snowshovel: Ah yes, Editorializer Steve Huntley, otherwise known as "Krauthammer, but for idiots".


Isn't Krauthammer himself "Krauthammer, but for idiots"?
 
2012-10-30 04:08:50 PM
Partisan dickbag remains partisan...film at 11.
 
2012-10-30 04:09:16 PM

Epoch_Zero: Modmins just sucking off all the red state sites. Taking it deep for those precious clicks. Gotta greenlight absolute trash!


Got you to post, didn't it?

Ca-ching, ca-ching!

Dolla' dolla' bills ya'll
 
2012-10-30 04:09:57 PM

Diogenes: Funny how we place the blame on the guy who tried to overcome obstructionism instead of the ones creating the obstructions.


If the guy tries to find a cure for cancer and comes up short... that doesn't mean you vote for cancer.

/rock on
 
2012-10-30 04:11:01 PM

Lando Lincoln: Maybe voters need to step up against Republican obstructionism as well and not vote Republican anymore until they start acting like sensible people.


But...but only Republicans have the Divine Right of Kings Elected Officials to rule over us meek sheep.
 
2012-10-30 04:11:10 PM

PreMortem: During a debate, Obama said he advocated increasing the capital gains tax even when told lower rates produce more revenues by encouraging investments in the economy.

This has no basis in historical fact, or the current environment.


Even got one of the more educated right wingers that I work with to admit this was a bullshiat claim.

Capital gains and business investment have near zero to do with each other. 99.99999 percent of the time when you're buying stock, you're not investing in a company. They're not seeing a dime of you're money. You're buying a stock from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from the company. THAT person is the one who invested in the company; everyone else is just hoping to get lucky.
 
2012-10-30 04:13:46 PM
Obama destroying the American Dream? fark that noise.

Barack Obama ***IS*** the American Dream
 
2012-10-30 04:13:55 PM

GAT_00: Also, how is it Obama's fault that hiring isn't higher when business profits are at all time highs and are 75% higher than 4 years ago? Clearly the business climate isn't actually bad. You can't have record high profits and say the President is bad for business.


The same party is saying the Presnit will take yer gunz when it's his opponent that's actually signed an assault weapons ban...
 
2012-10-30 04:16:07 PM

Weaver95: During the 2008 campaign, voters heard Obama promise to end the bitter partisan and cynical politics of Washington. Looks like that was one campaign promise where the president couldn't be trusted to deliver.

I'm pretty sure that one side of a partisan divide can't fix things without at least a pretense of cooperation from the other.

 
2012-10-30 04:17:28 PM

IlGreven: GAT_00: Also, how is it Obama's fault that hiring isn't higher when business profits are at all time highs and are 75% higher than 4 years ago? Clearly the business climate isn't actually bad. You can't have record high profits and say the President is bad for business.

The same party is saying the Presnit will take yer gunz when it's his opponent that's actually signed an assault weapons ban...


Wait, is this the same president that wanted to compromise on debt but was told to bugger off and then our credit rating was downgraded?
 
2012-10-30 04:18:38 PM
A lot of that follows my thinking about Obama.

I had such high hopes.
 
2012-10-30 04:18:43 PM

Precious Roy's Horse Dividers: Obama destroying the American Dream? fark that noise.

Barack Obama ***IS*** the American Dream


The problem is that poor minorities are only supposed to dream about it.......they aren't supposed to actually achieve any power.
 
2012-10-30 04:21:03 PM

Cletus C.: A lot of that follows my thinking about Obama.

I had such high hopes.


Doubt it.
 
2012-10-30 04:22:00 PM

PreMortem:
This has no basis in historical fact, or the current environment.



JFK would like a word.
 
2012-10-30 04:22:57 PM
"That must have come as a slap in the face to the 23 million Americans out of work, trapped in part-time jobs or given up looking for work; to the 50 percent of college grads who can't find jobs or labor at doing something below their hard-earned college credentials..."

Hmmm, saving lives through health care or dealing with a misplaced sense of wage value? Tough call. It took two years of unemployment with a brand spanking new university degree to get a job at half the going rate for my qualifications, and decade more to turn it around. Old timers I knew smiled about those 'hardships' compared to shoveling coal for $2/ton. A degree is an advantage, not an entailment.
 
2012-10-30 04:23:36 PM
...or entitlement...
 
2012-10-30 04:24:51 PM

Vindibudd: JFK would like a word.



Link
 
2012-10-30 04:25:53 PM
Wow, this thread is total Troll Hell right now.
 
2012-10-30 04:27:04 PM
Of course, if he had been open to working across the aisle, to accepting conservative fiscal ideas, ...

Ha! Yeah!? Why didn't Obama accept the conservative ideas of Medicare Part D being unfunded, privatizing SS, starting two expensive wars and deregulating the financial industry even though they only wanted to see him fail at any cost?

Why did he not embrace me so that I might slip this dagger between his ribs?

Fiscal conservatism across the aisle. Hilarious. Maybe he should have asked Paul Ryan for his magic fiscal wand while he was reaching around there, eh, Steve Huntley?
 
2012-10-30 04:27:20 PM
He only gave Boehner 98% of what he wanted. Damn that uncompromising Obama!
 
2012-10-30 04:27:27 PM

Vindibudd: PreMortem:
This has no basis in historical fact, or the current environment.



JFK would like a word.


Changing the top rate from 91% to 70% probably did raise revenues. However, there's nothing in the link that tells you whether cutting taxes raises revenues. We'd have to look at the revenue changes in the years before to establish a pattern.
 
2012-10-30 04:28:10 PM

tnpir: Wow, this thread nation is total Troll Hell right now.


FTFY
 
2012-10-30 04:31:52 PM

Vindibudd: PreMortem:
This has no basis in historical fact, or the current environment.



JFK would like a word.


We're talking about capital gains.
 
2012-10-30 04:35:47 PM
Reducing tax rates increases tax revenues the way increasing fried food consumption improves health.
 
2012-10-30 04:37:24 PM
If overhauling the Health-care system was purely a liberal dream then why did Obama and Democrats use Romney's and the Heritage Foundations model for overhauling the heath care system?
 
2012-10-30 04:41:42 PM
I'm just going to keep posting this.

i75.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-30 04:42:03 PM
Obama's excuse for "absolutely not" was GOP opposition in Congress. Early in his term, Republicans had just 40 votes in the U.S. Senate, not enough to stop legislation with a filibuster unless they had help from Democratic members.

You mean like a senate seat won by a Dem, but contested until July 2009 leaving only 59 votes, but by which time another Dem seat was essentially vacant due to health (and eventually death) and not filled until late September, 2009 (still leaving only 59 votes) which was eventually won by a Republican in January 2010... that 'less than 4 month supermajority' that spanned the holiday season.

Republicans did indeed filibuster. Three GOP senators had to vote in favor of the stimulus to get it passed.
 
2012-10-30 04:42:27 PM
In an interview with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register, Obama was asked if he regretted his push to enact health-care overhaul legislation when he had huge Democratic majorities in Congress instead of emphasizing measures to fix the economy. "Absolutely not," responded the president. 

Because starving to death is OK, if you have health care.
 
2012-10-30 04:43:43 PM
Our children are going to look back and ask us why we tolerated this from our parents.
 
2012-10-30 04:45:55 PM
STEVE HUNTLEY shu­ntl­ey*cs­t­[nospam-﹫-backwards]l­iamg*c­om

dafug? gmail? The Chicago Sun Times doesn't have its own email domain?

Or should this piece have been under 'opinion'?
 
2012-10-30 04:45:57 PM

hdhale: The problem is that no matter whether those being employed are military personnel, bureaucrats, or temporary construction workers building a new dam or a highway, the tax payers pay for them, either directly through salaries and benefits or indirectly through contracts to private industry.

What is clear however is that the best jobs, the ones that really make the economy grow, the ones that are the true measure of a nation are not government jobs, nor tax payer funded projects. They are private sectors jobs that create products, services, etc. for the private sector.


So the private sector doesn't use hydroelectric power produced by government-funded dams, doesn't use government-funded highways?

Stick to welfare queen baiting, at least there you have a scrap of a "moral hazard" argument to make.
 
2012-10-30 04:46:14 PM

Pro Zack: In an interview with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register, Obama was asked if he regretted his push to enact health-care overhaul legislation when he had huge Democratic majorities in Congress instead of emphasizing measures to fix the economy. "Absolutely not," responded the president. 

Because starving to death is OK, if you have health care.


How many poor americans have starved to death in the last 4 years in the US? How many died of treatable conditions due to lack of affordable health insurance?
 
2012-10-30 04:48:32 PM
Blame Ted Kennedy. That farker had no business dying.

Also, blame a Republican congressman.
 
2012-10-30 04:49:20 PM

All2morrowsparTs: Pro Zack: In an interview with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register, Obama was asked if he regretted his push to enact health-care overhaul legislation when he had huge Democratic majorities in Congress instead of emphasizing measures to fix the economy. "Absolutely not," responded the president. 

Because starving to death is OK, if you have health care.

How many poor americans have starved to death in the last 4 years in the US? How many died of treatable conditions due to lack of affordable health insurance?


How many of those couldn't afford health insurance because the economy was ignored until election time?
 
2012-10-30 04:54:38 PM
So wait...blame Obama because he didn't force the right issue down the obstructionists throats? Wh...huh???
 
2012-10-30 04:55:18 PM
So newspaper endorsements count again?
 
2012-10-30 04:56:26 PM

Il Douchey: PreMortem: During a debate, Obama said he advocated increasing the capital gains tax even when told lower rates produce more revenues by encouraging investments in the economy.

This has no basis in historical fact, or the current environment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894&feature=related


You mean to tell me that people dumped tons of long-term holdings when the tax rates went down? Holy shiat!

/dumbass
 
2012-10-30 04:56:36 PM

Pro Zack: How many of those couldn't afford health insurance because the economy was ignored until election time?


Cost as an issue? Some of those people would have gladly paid a premium. They just were denied coverage.
 
2012-10-30 05:01:02 PM

Mithiwithi: government-funded


The government doesnt make money, they collect taxes. These items were paid for by taxes from the private sector. Are you saying that the private sector should not be able to use the items they paid for?
 
2012-10-30 05:01:02 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Don't blame 0bama.
He fought for the only thing he knew how to do, tell companies to do things differently, and tax people who don't buy insurance.

He never had a clue about how to fix the economy.

We had two Summers of Recoveries.
Shovel ready jobs that did nothing.
Cash for clunkers which did nothing
Investments in green jobs which did nothing but lose money.
We had Biden saying we are getting 500k jobs a month last year.


YES! That's why we're doing so much worse than we were 4 years ago. Because nothing.
 
2012-10-30 05:01:31 PM

TheBigJerk: I'm just going to keep posting this.

[i75.photobucket.com image 505x331]



People have been saying that for years. Decades even!
Only the truly dense don't get it. And no matter how much you tell something to a stupid person, they continue on being stupid.
 
2012-10-30 05:01:58 PM

hdhale: GAT_00: So you're saying government can create jobs?

The government can create jobs by the millions--it's called a military draft. It can also hire a bunch a bureaucrats for new agencies that are questionable as to whether or not they should actually exist.

The problem is that no matter whether those being employed are military personnel, bureaucrats, or temporary construction workers building a new dam or a highway, the tax payers pay for them, either directly through salaries and benefits or indirectly through contracts to private industry.

What is clear however is that the best jobs, the ones that really make the economy grow, the ones that are the true measure of a nation are not government jobs, nor tax payer funded projects. They are private sectors jobs that create products, services, etc. for the private sector.


And tell me, o sage, how exactly we are to create this private sector demand for private sector products and services when we have depressed wages, little credit, high unemployment, and are barely staving off a recession? Perhaps we can give more money to wealthy people, who will in turn put it in safe, long-term low risk investments?

No wait, that doesn't lead to growth.

Maybe we can give it back to the middle and lower classes in the form of tax rebates that they can then use to... well, shiat! Demand is down. If we do that, the middle and lower classes will just use it to pay off outstanding debts and shore up their assets.

Ultimately, all money comes from the same place: us, either through taxes or by buying and selling goods. Whether the government takes it in tax and uses it to interject money into a flagging economy, thereby jump-starting earnings and demand, or I use it to pay a private company that meets existing demand and that company recirculates what I buy in order to create more jobs is relevant ONLY IF EXISTING DEMAND OUTSTRIPS SUPPLY.

And it farking well doesn't right now. So what do we do? Get more demand for things. How do we do that? Policies that increase the spending power of the middle and lower class, with assurances that their purchases won't devalue? Sounds like socialism to me.
 
2012-10-30 05:03:19 PM

Pro Zack: All2morrowsparTs: Pro Zack: In an interview with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register, Obama was asked if he regretted his push to enact health-care overhaul legislation when he had huge Democratic majorities in Congress instead of emphasizing measures to fix the economy. "Absolutely not," responded the president. 

Because starving to death is OK, if you have health care.

How many poor americans have starved to death in the last 4 years in the US? How many died of treatable conditions due to lack of affordable health insurance?

How many of those couldn't afford health insurance because the economy was ignored until election time?


Because health care coverage has never been an issue before 2008.
 
2012-10-30 05:07:00 PM

joonyer: tenpoundsofcheese: Don't blame 0bama.
He fought for the only thing he knew how to do, tell companies to do things differently, and tax people who don't buy insurance.

He never had a clue about how to fix the economy.

We had two Summers of Recoveries.
Shovel ready jobs that did nothing.
Cash for clunkers which did nothing
Investments in green jobs which did nothing but lose money.
We had Biden saying we are getting 500k jobs a month last year.

YES! That's why we're doing so much worse than we were 4 years ago. Because nothing.


Did you know the price of gas has DOUBLED since Obama took office!
 
2012-10-30 05:07:40 PM

Lane83: Maybe we can give it back to the middle and lower classes in the form of tax rebates that they can then use to... well, shiat! Demand is down. If we do that, the middle and lower classes will just use it to pay off outstanding debts and shore up their assets.


Depends on how you do it. GWB's rebate checks were great politics but less effective at stimulating demand for the very reasons you cite -- they paid off debts or saved the money. Obama's payroll tax cut was not great politics but was more effective at stimulating demand because the money went back to consumers in small amounts in each paycheck, so they were more likely to spend it.
 
2012-10-30 05:08:26 PM
During a debate, Obama said he advocated increasing the capital gains tax even when told lower rates produce more revenues by encouraging investments in the economy.

See what he did there? Sneak in the fact that Obama was told a THEORY (a wrong one, at that), and treat it like he defied a stone cold fact.

In other news, Romney is still running for President, EVEN when told that he's a douchebag and is horrible for the job. Why is Romney ignoring this fact?
 
2012-10-30 05:19:57 PM
It's these HILARIOUS HEADLINES that keep me coming back to Fark.


//sarcasm
 
2012-10-30 05:20:18 PM

theknuckler_33: joonyer: tenpoundsofcheese: Don't blame 0bama.
He fought for the only thing he knew how to do, tell companies to do things differently, and tax people who don't buy insurance.

He never had a clue about how to fix the economy.

We had two Summers of Recoveries.
Shovel ready jobs that did nothing.
Cash for clunkers which did nothing
Investments in green jobs which did nothing but lose money.
We had Biden saying we are getting 500k jobs a month last year.

YES! That's why we're doing so much worse than we were 4 years ago. Because nothing.

Did you know the price of gas has DOUBLED since Obama took office!


It was $2.99/gallon at the station I use here in St. Louis. I was $3.49/gallon last week. I'm sure the drop was all the hard work by the republicans in congress. Damn you FartBama!
 
2012-10-30 05:27:28 PM
Of course, if he had been open to working across the aisle, to accepting conservative fiscal ideas, the president could have picked off some moderate Republican senators

i get so damned mad when i see/hear this. it's patently bullshiat. and the writer/speaker most often knows it.

sorry if 100 of the 120 comments said the same thing, i had to vent.
 
2012-10-30 05:27:37 PM

Epoch_Zero: theknuckler_33: Did you know the price of gas has DOUBLED since Obama took office!

It was $2.99/gallon at the station I use here in St. Louis. I was $3.49/gallon last week. I'm sure the drop was all the hard work by the republicans in congress. Damn you FartBama!


You know, the price of gas has really been grinding my gears lately, but not for the reason you might think. I've been living where I am now for 12 years and for the longest time the gas prices in my area were the cheapest around. From a comparison perspective, they were always at least .10 less than near where I work, nearly identical to gas near my in-laws in northern Maryland (eastern shore). Over the past year however, the gas in my area has become the most expensive in the region. It is now at BEST, the same as near my work and just this past Friday when I visited my in-laws for a special occasion, the price of gas down there was .24 less per gallon than the stations near where I live. Gas was $3.73 on Friday (it dropped to $3.69 on Sunday afternoon). It was $3.49 at several stations in Md. I can go just 5 miles east of where I live and hit a station whose gas is .13 less than all the ones in my immediate vicinity (
Pisses me off.

/small>damn you, fartbongo!
 
2012-10-30 05:32:14 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: snowshovel: Ah yes, Editorializer Steve Huntley, otherwise known as "Krauthammer, but for idiots".

Isn't Krauthammer himself "Krauthammer, but for idiots"?


Well, at least Krauthammer has skin in the game (unlike Nate Silver), given the injuries Charlie Tango sustained in the Mossad botched raid to assassinate the prince of Jordan. Huntley really doesn't have much reason.
 
2012-10-30 05:36:25 PM

snowshovel: Lee Jackson Beauregard: snowshovel: Ah yes, Editorializer Steve Huntley, otherwise known as "Krauthammer, but for idiots".

Isn't Krauthammer himself "Krauthammer, but for idiots"?

Well, at least Krauthammer has skin in the game (unlike Nate Silver), given the injuries Charlie Tango sustained in the Mossad botched raid to assassinate the prince of Jordan. Huntley really doesn't have much reason.


Did you channel Dennis Miller there for a second?
 
2012-10-30 05:37:15 PM

Il Douchey: PreMortem: Conservative Ben Stein laughs at your "raising taxes lowers revenue" Lie.

You have it exactly backwards. The argument that Obama was disputing in the video is that lowering taxes raises revenue. This has basis in historical fact, as both Clinton and W increased revenues when they lowered the cap gains tax rate


???????

Lowering taxes has never raised revenues, ever. That is a historical undisputed fact.
 
2012-10-30 05:40:05 PM
We get it Chicago ST, HE'S BLACK.
 
2012-10-30 05:41:11 PM

snowshovel: Well, at least Krauthammer has skin in the game (unlike Nate Silver)


What does this mean, exactly? What 'skin' does Krauthammer have in the game?

Did I miss something?
 
2012-10-30 05:57:03 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-30 06:01:07 PM

theknuckler_33: snowshovel: Well, at least Krauthammer has skin in the game (unlike Nate Silver)

What does this mean, exactly? What 'skin' does Krauthammer have in the game?

Did I miss something?


If it wasn't for that sniper's misplaced shot at the Prince's compound, Big Charlie wouldn't need to be the editorializer that he is today. But things happen. Especially when the Mossad is known for planning most of their raids during new moons.
 
2012-10-30 06:04:23 PM
From the article:

In an interview with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register, Obama was asked if he regretted his push to enact health-care overhaul legislation when he had huge Democratic majorities in Congress instead of emphasizing measures to fix the economy. "Absolutely not," responded the president.

That must have come as a slap in the face to the 23 million Americans out of work, trapped in part-time jobs or given up looking for work; to the 50 percent of college grads who can't find jobs or labor at doing something below their hard-earned college credentials, and to the 5.5 million unemployed women and the 27.5 million women in poverty, increases of, respectively, 500,000 and 3.6 million over the levels when Obama took office.




WELL FARKIN' DUH!

Wonder why the Des Moines Register reversed their 2008 position and now endorse Mitt Romney. I actually know: it's because they're backing a winner. Mitt Romney. Book it. Done.

But the Body Odor fanboys here will say it's because da Register are stoopid and dum.an' doan't know nuttin'! OH! That's right. They endorsed BO in 2008. OOooo....BURN!..........OHHHH...SNAP!
 
2012-10-30 06:05:14 PM

SineSwiper: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 768x613]


I like troll nuke. FWIW
 
2012-10-30 06:31:08 PM

Proximuscentauri: This is definitely off-topic, but I don't know how else the public will see this.


Have you thought about recording this information into a small R2 unit and sneaking it out in an escape pod during a pitched space battle to a desert planet?
 
2012-10-30 06:50:13 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Il Douchey: PreMortem: During a debate, Obama said he advocated increasing the capital gains tax even when told lower rates produce more revenues by encouraging investments in the economy.

This has no basis in historical fact, or the current environment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894&feature=related

don't use facts, it just gets them mad.

remember "fairness" is more important than a healthy and growing economy.


That's really rich coming from the side who did everything they can to NOT be fair and helpful in this economic crisis. Maybe if the right had, you know, worked with the left instead of filibustering and whining for 3.5 years, we'd have fully recovered by last year.
 
2012-10-30 07:02:12 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: bdub77: tenpoundsofcheese: Sure, first tell me what an "agenda bill" is.

Something that doesn't involve naming a post office or honoring the Boy Scouts for 60 years of raping children.

you do know that 0bama is the honorary President of the Boy Scouts and has praised them. what does that tell you?


ZOMG, he sent them a letter congratulating them on their 100th anniversary, what an outrate. And he's also criticized them for discriminating against gays.

As for being the honorary President, that's been every US President since 1912. I'm sure if he refused it you'd be the first in line to denounce him for hating children, spitting on tradition, etc.
 
2012-10-30 07:48:55 PM

Fail in Human Form: Our children are going to look back and ask us why we tolerated this from our parents.


And like our parents, we'll likely tell them "Because STFU, that's why." And for a while, it'll work.

After all, it's become an American tradition.
 
2012-10-30 08:01:12 PM
Haven't been here much for a while.

Nice the see the same libs are still jacking off with each other using keyboards.

/it's just sooo cute
 
2012-10-30 08:22:16 PM

jehovahs witness protection: Haven't been here much for a while.

Nice the see the same libs are still jacking off with each other using keyboards.

/it's just sooo cute


I am guessing you haven't been on for awhile because you've been roundly ignored.

*plonk*
 
2012-10-30 08:43:00 PM
i1128.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-30 08:51:46 PM
Government health care???

Doctors in the UK have been asked to designate 1% of their patients as likely to die in the next year. The plan is to usher those patients into end of life treatment, a move that the government estimates will save over a billion pounds a year.

Norman Lamb, the minister of state for care services has advised doctors to look for "indicators of fraility and deterioration" ande that "older people are a priority to consider" because "70-80% of all deaths are likely to benefit from planned end of life care"

The governement will help you die, make it comfortable, and save money to boot.

Maybe we can't stop the UK, but maybe we can learn from them.

Like Reagan said (his most dangerous nine words)... "We're from the government, and we're here to help"
 
2012-10-30 09:01:09 PM

Fartbama: Government health care???

Doctors in the UK have been asked to designate 1% of their patients as likely to die in the next year. The plan is to usher those patients into end of life treatment, a move that the government estimates will save over a billion pounds a year.

Norman Lamb, the minister of state for care services has advised doctors to look for "indicators of fraility and deterioration" ande that "older people are a priority to consider" because "70-80% of all deaths are likely to benefit from planned end of life care"

The governement will help you die, make it comfortable, and save money to boot.

Maybe we can't stop the UK, but maybe we can learn from them.

Like Reagan said (his most dangerous nine words)... "We're from the government, and we're here to help"


Much better to keep old people on life support and slowly drain all the money you can from them and their heirs, right?
 
2012-10-30 09:04:58 PM

Fartbama: The governement will help you die, make it comfortable, and save money to boot.


This is true. The private sector is more efficient at doing that right here in our own country.
 
2012-10-30 09:09:07 PM

Fartbama: Government health care???

Doctors in the UK have been asked to designate 1% of their patients as likely to die in the next year. The plan is to usher those patients into end of life treatment, a move that the government estimates will save over a billion pounds a year.

Norman Lamb, the minister of state for care services has advised doctors to look for "indicators of fraility and deterioration" ande that "older people are a priority to consider" because "70-80% of all deaths are likely to benefit from planned end of life care"

The governement will help you die, make it comfortable, and save money to boot.

Maybe we can't stop the UK, but maybe we can learn from them.

Like Reagan said (his most dangerous nine words)... "We're from the government, and we're here to help"


Sarah Palin called, she wants her talking points back.
 
2012-10-30 09:12:53 PM
Democrats are terrible at stopping Republican's evil.

So vote Republican.
 
2012-10-30 09:14:34 PM

Garble: Democrats are terrible at stopping Republican's evil.

So vote Republican.


Essentially this.

Republicans are drunk drivers with a 5-series BMW, but the Dems are the DDs who can't drive stick.
 
2012-10-30 09:19:32 PM

Il Douchey: During the 2008 campaign, voters heard Obama promise to end the bitter partisan and cynical politics of Washington.


God begins to cry.

Ease racial tensions in America

God begins to bang his head on his keyboard.
 
2012-10-30 09:43:16 PM
Look, even though I agree with the basic premise (that Obama spent more of his political capital in one place than was perhaps wise), he had to choose something to cash in his favors on and I can't fault him all that much for choosing Health care, given how it lies at the intersection of basic human welfare, industry control, and mitigating the dangers of screwy income distribution.

Even if he hadn't picked healthcare, my alternative choice would have been to turn closing Guantanamo into a real fight instead of backing down at the first sign of resistance. Not "unemployment". How the bloody hell is a president, or a congress for that matter, supposed to get a single bill/package together to address unemployment, short of outright nationalization of major industries?
 
2012-10-30 10:27:49 PM

coeyagi: Fartbama: Government health care???

Doctors in the UK have been asked to designate 1% of their patients as likely to die in the next year. The plan is to usher those patients into end of life treatment, a move that the government estimates will save over a billion pounds a year.

Norman Lamb, the minister of state for care services has advised doctors to look for "indicators of fraility and deterioration" ande that "older people are a priority to consider" because "70-80% of all deaths are likely to benefit from planned end of life care"

The governement will help you die, make it comfortable, and save money to boot.

Maybe we can't stop the UK, but maybe we can learn from them.

Like Reagan said (his most dangerous nine words)... "We're from the government, and we're here to help"

Sarah Palin called, she wants her talking points back.


So... You can't refute what I said. Thanks for backing me up.
 
2012-10-30 10:30:44 PM

Fartbama: coeyagi: Fartbama: Government health care???

Doctors in the UK have been asked to designate 1% of their patients as likely to die in the next year. The plan is to usher those patients into end of life treatment, a move that the government estimates will save over a billion pounds a year.

Norman Lamb, the minister of state for care services has advised doctors to look for "indicators of fraility and deterioration" ande that "older people are a priority to consider" because "70-80% of all deaths are likely to benefit from planned end of life care"

The governement will help you die, make it comfortable, and save money to boot.

Maybe we can't stop the UK, but maybe we can learn from them.

Like Reagan said (his most dangerous nine words)... "We're from the government, and we're here to help"

Sarah Palin called, she wants her talking points back.

So... You can't refute what I said. Thanks for backing me up.


Sure I can, I just chose not to waste more than a sentence on you.
 
2012-10-30 10:33:07 PM

coeyagi: Fartbama: coeyagi: Fartbama: Government health care???

Doctors in the UK have been asked to designate 1% of their patients as likely to die in the next year. The plan is to usher those patients into end of life treatment, a move that the government estimates will save over a billion pounds a year.

Norman Lamb, the minister of state for care services has advised doctors to look for "indicators of fraility and deterioration" ande that "older people are a priority to consider" because "70-80% of all deaths are likely to benefit from planned end of life care"

The governement will help you die, make it comfortable, and save money to boot.

Maybe we can't stop the UK, but maybe we can learn from them.

Like Reagan said (his most dangerous nine words)... "We're from the government, and we're here to help"

Sarah Palin called, she wants her talking points back.

So... You can't refute what I said. Thanks for backing me up.

Sure I can, I just chose not to waste more than a sentence on you.


Yeah, that rebuttal would totally fly if I'd tried to get away with it. Double standards are okay, I guess.
 
2012-10-30 10:34:42 PM

Fartbama: coeyagi: Fartbama: coeyagi: Fartbama: Government health care???

Doctors in the UK have been asked to designate 1% of their patients as likely to die in the next year. The plan is to usher those patients into end of life treatment, a move that the government estimates will save over a billion pounds a year.

Norman Lamb, the minister of state for care services has advised doctors to look for "indicators of fraility and deterioration" ande that "older people are a priority to consider" because "70-80% of all deaths are likely to benefit from planned end of life care"

The governement will help you die, make it comfortable, and save money to boot.

Maybe we can't stop the UK, but maybe we can learn from them.

Like Reagan said (his most dangerous nine words)... "We're from the government, and we're here to help"

Sarah Palin called, she wants her talking points back.

So... You can't refute what I said. Thanks for backing me up.

Sure I can, I just chose not to waste more than a sentence on you.

Yeah, that rebuttal would totally fly if I'd tried to get away with it. Double standards are okay, I guess.


1) Go to Politifact.

2) Research Sarah Palin's assertion that Obamacare has Death Panels.

3) Weep in your derp.
 
2012-10-30 10:45:21 PM

coeyagi: Fartbama: coeyagi: Fartbama: coeyagi: Fartbama: Government health care???

Doctors in the UK have been asked to designate 1% of their patients as likely to die in the next year. The plan is to usher those patients into end of life treatment, a move that the government estimates will save over a billion pounds a year.

Norman Lamb, the minister of state for care services has advised doctors to look for "indicators of fraility and deterioration" ande that "older people are a priority to consider" because "70-80% of all deaths are likely to benefit from planned end of life care"

The governement will help you die, make it comfortable, and save money to boot.

Maybe we can't stop the UK, but maybe we can learn from them.

Like Reagan said (his most dangerous nine words)... "We're from the government, and we're here to help"

Sarah Palin called, she wants her talking points back.

So... You can't refute what I said. Thanks for backing me up.

Sure I can, I just chose not to waste more than a sentence on you.

Yeah, that rebuttal would totally fly if I'd tried to get away with it. Double standards are okay, I guess.

1) Go to Politifact.

2) Research Sarah Palin's assertion that Obamacare has Death Panels.

3) Weep in your derp.


I didn't say a thing about "death panels."
 
2012-10-30 10:47:02 PM

Fartbama: coeyagi: Fartbama: coeyagi: Fartbama: coeyagi: Fartbama: Government health care???

Doctors in the UK have been asked to designate 1% of their patients as likely to die in the next year. The plan is to usher those patients into end of life treatment, a move that the government estimates will save over a billion pounds a year.

Norman Lamb, the minister of state for care services has advised doctors to look for "indicators of fraility and deterioration" ande that "older people are a priority to consider" because "70-80% of all deaths are likely to benefit from planned end of life care"

The governement will help you die, make it comfortable, and save money to boot.

Maybe we can't stop the UK, but maybe we can learn from them.

Like Reagan said (his most dangerous nine words)... "We're from the government, and we're here to help"

Sarah Palin called, she wants her talking points back.

So... You can't refute what I said. Thanks for backing me up.

Sure I can, I just chose not to waste more than a sentence on you.

Yeah, that rebuttal would totally fly if I'd tried to get away with it. Double standards are okay, I guess.

1) Go to Politifact.

2) Research Sarah Palin's assertion that Obamacare has Death Panels.

3) Weep in your derp.

I didn't say a thing about "death panels."


When I talk about having a dinner with steak, baked potatoes, and succotash, I didn't say anything about "lima beans and corn" either.
 
2012-10-30 10:55:13 PM

Fartbama: coeyagi: Fartbama: coeyagi: Fartbama: coeyagi: Fartbama: Government health care???

Doctors in the UK have been asked to designate 1% of their patients as likely to die in the next year. The plan is to usher those patients into end of life treatment, a move that the government estimates will save over a billion pounds a year.

Norman Lamb, the minister of state for care services has advised doctors to look for "indicators of fraility and deterioration" ande that "older people are a priority to consider" because "70-80% of all deaths are likely to benefit from planned end of life care"

The governement will help you die, make it comfortable, and save money to boot.

Maybe we can't stop the UK, but maybe we can learn from them.

Like Reagan said (his most dangerous nine words)... "We're from the government, and we're here to help"

Sarah Palin called, she wants her talking points back.

So... You can't refute what I said. Thanks for backing me up.

Sure I can, I just chose not to waste more than a sentence on you.

Yeah, that rebuttal would totally fly if I'd tried to get away with it. Double standards are okay, I guess.

1) Go to Politifact.

2) Research Sarah Palin's assertion that Obamacare has Death Panels.

3) Weep in your derp.

I didn't say a thing about "death panels."


Seeing as you made that up whole cloth out of your fevered imagination (as I looked through Google for any of the words you wrote and saw NOTHING matching it), I"d say he did the smart thing by not bothering to refute your bullshiat 'argument'.
 
2012-10-30 11:38:58 PM

AurizenDarkstar:
Seeing as you made that up whole cloth out of your fevered imagination (as I looked through Google for any of the words you wrote and saw NOTHING matching it), I"d say he did the smart thing by not bothering to refute your bullshiat 'argument'.


Here you go.

You didn't look very hard, but at at least you're engaging on real terms instead of throwing up strawmen.
 
2012-10-30 11:42:50 PM
OK, I'll bite... Obama took on the Republican obstructionism to overhaul healthcare, but didn't beat obstructionism with his jobs package. Why in the fark are Republicans neither negotiating nor conceding, but obstructing everything in the first place? The reality is there are two parties,... one of Democrats looking to build a better nation, and one of petulant second graders elected in the name of lowering our historically low taxes even more while biatching about the deficit.
 
2012-10-30 11:42:50 PM

Fartbama: AurizenDarkstar:
Seeing as you made that up whole cloth out of your fevered imagination (as I looked through Google for any of the words you wrote and saw NOTHING matching it), I"d say he did the smart thing by not bothering to refute your bullshiat 'argument'.

Here you go.

You didn't look very hard, but at at least you're engaging on real terms instead of throwing up strawmen.


I never said anything about the UK. It may or may not be true. I don't care.

In the context of the US, it isn't true. We don't have government run healthcare. So what is your f*cking point?
 
2012-10-31 12:29:38 AM
Shouldn't this be the Republicans' fault since they're the fark-ups holding everything else back?
 
2012-10-31 12:38:03 AM

coeyagi: Fartbama: AurizenDarkstar:
Seeing as you made that up whole cloth out of your fevered imagination (as I looked through Google for any of the words you wrote and saw NOTHING matching it), I"d say he did the smart thing by not bothering to refute your bullshiat 'argument'.

Here you go.

You didn't look very hard, but at at least you're engaging on real terms instead of throwing up strawmen.

I never said anything about the UK. It may or may not be true. I don't care.

In the context of the US, it isn't true. We don't have government run healthcare. So what is your f*cking point?


Point being we should have government run healthcare. Let the goddamn medical insurance companies die. I don't see the problem with us saying 'Hey, you are farkin ancient and spending 100's of thousands of dollars to prolong your live 5 weeks makes no goddamn sense. Here is a prescription for some strong morphine/weed/cocaine/ or whatever the fark is you pleasure to ease your passage to the after life.

There I said it, and we all know it's true. 70 year old grandpa doesn't need a new heart.
 
2012-10-31 01:17:16 AM

MrSplifferton: [i1128.photobucket.com image 480x284]


Union Thugs are evil. Didn't you get the memo?
 
2012-10-31 01:30:37 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: MrSplifferton: [i1128.photobucket.com image 480x284]

Union Thugs are evil. Didn't you get the memo?


Is that what they are saying today, I can't keep track anymore, I'm getting dizzy not sure if it's rum or filp flops
 
2012-10-31 03:24:21 AM

coeyagi: Fartbama: AurizenDarkstar:
Seeing as you made that up whole cloth out of your fevered imagination (as I looked through Google for any of the words you wrote and saw NOTHING matching it), I"d say he did the smart thing by not bothering to refute your bullshiat 'argument'.

Here you go.

You didn't look very hard, but at at least you're engaging on real terms instead of throwing up strawmen.

I never said anything about the UK. It may or may not be true. I don't care.

In the context of the US, it isn't true. We don't have government run healthcare. So what is your f*cking point?


Interesting. You just got your ass kicked in a straight up, civil debate, right until the point where you go complete retarded spazoid and ask your respectful opponent what's his f*cking point. Given your proclivity to "plonk" people at the slightest uncouthness, you seem to be in quite a dilemma: How does one plonk oneself?------good luck with that. BTW, we will judge your level of fail.
 
2012-10-31 03:40:17 AM

MrSplifferton: Point being we should have government run healthcare. Let the goddamn medical insurance companies die.


Insurance companies are the last entities that want to see healthcare costs run up (let's think....hhmmmm...how does the concept of insurance work, anyway?). Anyway. you seem to have a problem with doctors and how they practice medicine, along with having a discrimination problem against the elderly. To be halfway friendly, I understand the quality of life issue that you brought up. I personally don't intend to allow any modest wealth, that I might accrue, to leave my asset accounts.in chunks of ten thousand or more to extended ICU care and inflated medical costs. I also don't want to burden other taxpayer/citizens with keeping my carcass alive in a zombie state once my health comes to a point of unacceptable (to me) state of failure.Don't think that Federal government run health care is the problem, though. More like government regulated healthcare by the States (pretty much like it is, but with more true and honest peer evaluation).
 
2012-10-31 03:48:13 AM

firefly212: OK, I'll bite... Obama took on the Republican obstructionism to overhaul healthcare, but didn't beat obstructionism with his jobs package. Why in the fark are Republicans neither negotiating nor conceding, but obstructing everything in the first place? The reality is there are two parties,... one of Democrats looking to build a better nation, and one of petulant second graders elected in the name of lowering our historically low taxes even more while biatching about the deficit.


The reality is that there are three branches of government. Boehner (R) heads the House side of the Legislative. Obama heads the Executive. the bottlenecks are between the Repubs and Obama. Boehner worked honestly, at length, and with good will to come to a negotiated bill with Obama on an economic package that could help the U.S.. Obama kept asking for more and more, bluffed Boehner right at let's make a deal time, and Boehner called his bluff. Pretty much end of story. No bill, Obama as much to blame as "Republican obstructionism." Mitt Romney, new President Book it. Done..
 
2012-10-31 11:51:25 AM

Pro Zack: In an interview with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register, Obama was asked if he regretted his push to enact health-care overhaul legislation when he had huge Democratic majorities in Congress instead of emphasizing measures to fix the economy. "Absolutely not," responded the president. 

Because starving to death is OK, if you have health care.


The majority of people starving to death in this country are the direct result of not being able to afford health care.
 
2012-10-31 11:55:44 AM

Fartbama: Government health care???

Doctors in the UK have been asked to designate 1% of their patients as likely to die in the next year. The plan is to usher those patients into end of life treatment, a move that the government estimates will save over a billion pounds a year.

Norman Lamb, the minister of state for care services has advised doctors to look for "indicators of fraility and deterioration" ande that "older people are a priority to consider" because "70-80% of all deaths are likely to benefit from planned end of life care"

The governement will help you die, make it comfortable, and save money to boot.

Maybe we can't stop the UK, but maybe we can learn from them.


Yes, we can.

We can learn not to put the government in the hands of people who think government is evil. Which, as I often say, is the definition of a Republican. (Or, in Britain's case, the Tories.)
 
2012-10-31 06:13:12 PM

lantawa: firefly212: OK, I'll bite... Obama took on the Republican obstructionism to overhaul healthcare, but didn't beat obstructionism with his jobs package. Why in the fark are Republicans neither negotiating nor conceding, but obstructing everything in the first place? The reality is there are two parties,... one of Democrats looking to build a better nation, and one of petulant second graders elected in the name of lowering our historically low taxes even more while biatching about the deficit.

The reality is that there are three branches of government. Boehner (R) heads the House side of the Legislative. Obama heads the Executive. the bottlenecks are between the Repubs and Obama. Boehner worked honestly, at length, and with good will to come to a negotiated bill with Obama on an economic package that could help the U.S.. Obama kept asking for more and more, bluffed Boehner right at let's make a deal time, and Boehner called his bluff. Pretty much end of story. No bill, Obama as much to blame as "Republican obstructionism." Mitt Romney, new President Book it. Done..


Yeah, the man who gave the right 98% of what they wanted while the right kept screaming about not getting what they want was the one asking for more and more. I also didn't see anyone whining about Romneycare when it was installed in Massachusetts.
 
Displayed 166 of 166 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report