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.

(The Weekly Standard)   The Fight Against Obamacare has just begun. Which can only mean that it getting passed, signed, and declared constitutional was just the Republicans tripping and TKO's themselves climbing into the ring   (weeklystandard.com) divider line 141
    More: Dumbass, obamacare, Republican, constitutions, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Chief Justice John Roberts, health insurance exchanges, repeal  
•       •       •

2265 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jan 2013 at 11:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-28 02:22:09 PM  

Karac: coeyagi: Fat GOP Guy At Work: "My rates have gone up in the past year! Damn Obamacare!"
Me: "They have been going up every year!"
Fat GOP Guy at Work: "But this year, my taxes went up too!"
Me: "They went back to what they were before Obama was in office."
Fat GOP Guy at Work: "I dunno, it sounds like socialism."
Me (voice in my head): "Maybe if you and millions of other fat asses weren't so god damn fat our premiums wouldn't be so high to pay for your cardiac treatments. My socialism is keeping you alive, you dumb inbred fat f*ck."

//used to be fat, so it's cool

Mine:
FGGAW: "Teachers are socialist scum that shouldn't be allowed to vote because they're on the government dole!"
Me: "Isn't your wife a public school teacher?"
FGGAW: "Yeah, but she's quitting next month to teach at a private schoo.l"
Me: "What are you guys going to do for health insurance? I know you don't get any here."

Fast forward two months...
FGGAW: "Holy shiat!! Private insurance wants $1600 a month because I'm overweight and my son's on insulin!"
Me: "Good thing Obamacare got passed then. Otherwise those pre-existing conditions probably would have kept you from getting any at all."


He will still blame Obama and vote a straight GOP ticket because socialism.
 
2013-01-28 02:23:56 PM  

Grungehamster: To be fair, Social Security is covered; Medicare not so much.

Receipts for Medicare need to be about 6x larger to actually cover the annual cost of the program once you work in parts A, B, C, and D.


Sure but they are still pretending these programs have nothing on the revenue side which is a lie. I am not saying they are perfect but to only look at the costs side without the revenue side is just plain lying.
 
2013-01-28 02:24:40 PM  
Over the next 4-6 years, how pissed is the GOP going to get that they tried to smear Obama by calling it Obamacare?
 
2013-01-28 02:27:36 PM  

bulldg4life: Over the next 4-6 years, how pissed is the GOP going to get that they tried to smear Obama by calling it Obamacare?


Yeah, you have to laugh at how the Obama camp adopted that and made it theirs, "I do care" etc. Owned it then owned the Republicans with it.
 
2013-01-28 02:27:41 PM  
"Repeal and replace" is a joke, because the GOP's ideal version is the exact same as Obamacare, only without the means to pay for it.
 
2013-01-28 02:28:13 PM  
Weaver95:

Cythraul: Weaver95: They didn't have to be told that what was being rammed through the House and Senate was the largest power grab by the federal government in at least a generation,

the author doesn't consider the Patriot Act to be a huge power grab? interesting....

It's not a power grab when they do it. Although I guess saying 'they' is unfair, since SO many Democrats voted for it as well, if I recall correctly.

my point is that the patriot act is a big gotdamn power grab and it's making a mockery of our rights damn near every day. where was all this outrage when the patriot act got passed?

i'm sorry but I don't think the GOP gives a damn about my rights. I don't believe they've got my best interests at heart and I don't trust them to do the right thing by me.


Obviously you're no constitutional scholar.

2nd Amendment = whatever I think it should mean, and set in stone by Jesus.
3rd Amendment = wtf?
4th Amendment = 9/11 changed everything
 
2013-01-28 02:28:20 PM  

bulldg4life: Over the next 4-6 years, how pissed is the GOP going to get that they tried to smear Obama by calling it Obamacare?


to be fair, it's becoming difficult to tell just what will enrage the GOP anymore.  they seem determined to spend as much time as possible being angry about something.
 
2013-01-28 02:31:14 PM  

Weaver95: they seem determined to spend as much time as possible being angry about something.


Well, they need to fill up the empty time created by not governing anymore
 
2013-01-28 02:31:36 PM  
img1.fark.net The Fight Against the Heritage Foundation's health care plan from the mid-90s has just begun.

Come on, you dumbshiats. You can win this. You can break Fartfartacare. Guess what happens next? Hint: It isn't going back to the status quo ante, no matter what you reactionary morons think.
 
2013-01-28 02:31:47 PM  

Corvus: cybrwzrd: Corvus: I would like to see a public option, but I don't have a problem with seeing if the private sector could compete with a public option.

I don't think a for profit health care system is capable of competing with a not for profit single payor system. The need for tort reform aside, there are far too many people skimming off the top of the current system and becoming insanely wealthy for doing very little to improve the quality of medical care.

Well then they would lose wouldn't they? So what would be the problem with doing it?

Also some are Non-profits now.


Yes, but take a look at Japan's healthcare system. Every cost is controlled by the government.

Even if the insurers are non-profits, big-pharma, labcorp (and other medical testing corps), and all of the other for profit entities out there are overinflating the cost of healthcare much like the cable/phone/internet monopolies do.
 
2013-01-28 02:35:34 PM  

Heraclitus: Article is not legit. How can they express the Republican point of view and not mention rape once?


Must be a typo.
 
2013-01-28 02:38:39 PM  
cybrwzrd:

Corvus: cybrwzrd: Corvus: I would like to see a public option, but I don't have a problem with seeing if the private sector could compete with a public option.

I don't think a for profit health care system is capable of competing with a not for profit single payor system. The need for tort reform aside, there are far too many people skimming off the top of the current system and becoming insanely wealthy for doing very little to improve the quality of medical care.

Well then they would lose wouldn't they? So what would be the problem with doing it?

Also some are Non-profits now.

Yes, but take a look at Japan's healthcare system. Every cost is controlled by the government.

Even if the insurers are non-profits, big-pharma, labcorp (and other medical testing corps), and all of the other for profit entities out there are overinflating the cost of healthcare much like the cable/phone/internet monopolies do.


I used to IT contract for a few healthcare brokerages in the late 90's - early 00's. (The Baltimore area is rife with them) There is an insanely profitable niche to be filled by middlemen who collect many small business accounts and do collective bargaining on their behalf, so much so that small businesses will pay enormous amounts of money to save even more enormous amounts in their healthcare costs. The middlemen do well by this arrangement.

But hey, single payer would be more expensive, right?
 
2013-01-28 02:51:51 PM  

cybrwzrd: Corvus: I would like to see a public option, but I don't have a problem with seeing if the private sector could compete with a public option.

I don't think a for profit health care system is capable of competing with a not for profit single payor system. The need for tort reform aside, there are far too many people skimming off the top of the current system and becoming insanely wealthy for doing very little to improve the quality of medical care.


Plenty of other countries have a mix of for profit and not-for profit parts to their healthcare systems - the example I know being the UK where you pay into and get care from the NHS as part of a single payer system, and then you have BUPA private health insurance (and some other smaller ones that advertise less), private hospitals, etc. You end up ensuring that everyone is covered and healthcare costs aren't directly going to bankrupt anyone, and the private parts of the market have to provide very good service to justify people paying more for the extra coverage - shorter waiting times for non-urgent operations, private rooms and so on (or the expectation/reputation for such at least).
 
2013-01-28 02:54:11 PM  
My favorite argument against Obamacare that keeps cropping up here in California is that we will have to wait longer to see a doctor because 2 million new people will now have insurance. It's so blatantly, disgustingly selfish. That sounds to me like an opportunity to create some healthcare jobs, but what do I know?
 
2013-01-28 03:12:54 PM  
Moonfisher:

My favorite argument against Obamacare that keeps cropping up here in California is that we will have to wait longer to see a doctor because 2 million new people will now have insurance. It's so blatantly, disgustingly selfish. That sounds to me like an opportunity to create some healthcare jobs, but what do I know?

I had a really not-so-amusing experience 2 weeks ago that drove home how farked up random-payer heathcare is in the US, more particularly Dallas TX.

I was visiting my G/F, and she woke up sunday morning in pain, then moved on to vomiting from the pain. At that point I told her she was going to the hospital. We went to the closest emergency room, who told us they were a surgical hospital only, so if she needed extended care they'd have to move her at her expense. So then we went to the next one that came up in Google's paid ads. By that point she was screaming and writhing from the pain. The one woman taking new patients spent a half hour going over the paperwork for the young, hispanic gang-banger-looking guy who had brought his grandpa in. Grandpa was doing well, my g/f was screaming and vomiting in pain. The one time the girl at the counter paid attention to us was when I grabbed a trash can and moved it over so G/F could barf in it/ I eventually went into the emergency room and grabbed an intern, he at least brought the G/F a wheelchair.

I know why there was an interminable wait. It's because they didn't know who would pay for one person's care, and because of that for all I knew my G/F's appendix could have burst while the payments were worked out.

This is wrong.

As it turned out it was kidney stones, and she's much better, thanks for asking. But so long as the most important thing is "who's paying for this?" we have issues.
 
2013-01-28 03:13:29 PM  
Current Republican strategist seen here reasserting his point

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-28 03:21:24 PM  

cybrwzrd: Yes, but take a look at Japan's healthcare system. Every cost is controlled by the government.

Even if the insurers are non-profits, big-pharma, labcorp (and other medical testing corps), and all of the other for profit entities out there are overinflating the cost of healthcare much like the cable/phone/internet monopolies do.


But that will never pass here unless we do it step by step here.

Wishing for something to happen or believing it is better doesn't make change happen. You need to be pragmatic and play the long game.

By the way many healthcare providers are also non-profit (probably more than insurers).
 
2013-01-28 03:23:44 PM  
My company changed its insurance provider and I just found out that I need to either find a new doctor or regularly pay 30% of my fees with a $2,000 deductible instead of having it all be covered by my previous provider, so I'm getting a kick out of this bullshiat.

Anyone who says a single payer or government-run health care system would be a nightmare hasn't had to actually do any farking paperwork to justify payment of their health care to a private insurance company.
 
2013-01-28 03:35:13 PM  

Maud Dib: FTA....BY JAMES C. CAPRETTA AND JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

It took 2 meatheads to write 3 measly paragraphs of utter shiate?


One to smear his feces on the wall, the other to take dictation from it.
 
2013-01-28 03:49:54 PM  

maxheck: As it turned out it was kidney stones, and she's much better, thanks for asking. But so long as the most important thing is "who's paying for this?" we have issues.


Having worked in mental health - specifically, an acute-care facility where the average stay in most wards was 3-7 days (at no small cost to the state/private insurance). A kid who was there 35 days was there who-farking-knows how much longer than he should have been because his insurance company disagreed with his docs and couldn't figure out what to do with him.

I say, until we have single-payer, this kind of thing will be a feature, not a bug.

// hospital custodians have to eat, too, so hospitals gotta hospital
 
2013-01-28 03:52:58 PM  
Amusing.

Right from the start, liberals have been wrong about almost everything concerning ObamaCare. It's costing far more than expected and it is not, as they kept insisting it would, going to lower the deficit. It's not, as they insisted it would, bringing down the cost of health care or health insurance. It's been an unmitigated disaster already and it hasn't even gotten started good yet. It's also funny that liberals declared themselves "right" on the Constitutional question for months because it was covered under the commerce clause... Only to have the court tell them it wasn't covered at all under the commerce clause but could be declared Constitutional as a tax.

Which is precisely what liberals, including Obama, said it wasn't.

In spite of all this the Republicans are just suppose to accept defeat and accept it right? If this is the standard in use, in that once the SCOTUS declares something, that we must accept it and move on... May I ask why liberals continue to fight against Citizens United? Many liberals disagree with the SCOTUS rulings on the 2nd Amendment, has that stopped them from pushing for 2nd Amendment related legislation where ever they can? Why should the Republicans be any different simply because they lost this particular SCOTUS fight?

Is that better?
 
2013-01-28 03:57:37 PM  
randomjsa:

Right from the start, liberals

And we're done.
 
2013-01-28 04:05:17 PM  

AeAe: I have recurring dreams of the death of the Republican leadership and their "rising" stars. I mean their literal death of whatever cause - dying in their sleep, suicide, cancer, diabetus, etc.

I also fantasize of having the ability to give them cancer.


Go away. You are not helping.
 
2013-01-28 04:23:48 PM  

randomjsa: In spite of all this the Republicans are just suppose to accept defeat and accept it right? If this is the standard in use, in that once the SCOTUS declares something, that we must accept it and move on... May I ask why liberals continue to fight against Citizens United? Many liberals disagree with the SCOTUS rulings on the 2nd Amendment, has that stopped them from pushing for 2nd Amendment related legislation where ever they can? Why should the Republicans be any different simply because they lost this particular SCOTUS fight?


The SCOTUS has not ruled that the 2nd Amendment is absolute. Quite the contrary, in DC v Heller, Scalia wrote that the government has the right to regulate the types of arms people have access to but because handguns were the most common form of weapon people chose to purchase the government could not ban handguns. The push for legislation is not to subvert the 2nd amendment, but to enact reasonable regulations.

For Citizens United, liberals generally fall into 2 camps: either attempt to relitigate the case after a new Justice has been seated to replace one of the current conservative members or shoot for a full-on constitutional amendment to explicitly bar corporate contributions from being considered speech. The handful of court cases challenging CU since the ruling have been about state level restrictions on corporate spending in elections which is a different issue from federal restrictions on spending.

Healthcare reform has been weighed by the courts and by the public. The courts found it constitutional (even though the justification was different than the primary justification advanced by the government) and the public re-elected the President who signed the bill, so I would argue that issue is pretty well settled. If you want to wait for liberal justice to be replaced and you want to then attempt to relitigate Obamacare, be our guest. If you have some novel legal argument which wasn't included in the original omnibus of claims, then go ahead and bring it forward, but most of the argument these days is "SOCIALISM!!!"
 
2013-01-28 04:34:40 PM  
 
2013-01-28 04:57:46 PM  

Moonfisher: My favorite argument against Obamacare that keeps cropping up here in California is that we will have to wait longer to see a doctor because 2 million new people will now have insurance. It's so blatantly, disgustingly selfish. That sounds to me like an opportunity to create some healthcare jobs, but what do I know?


This reminded me of my ex-girlfriend, who in 2008 was a BIG McCain/Palin supporter. Her angry Facebook post on Election night read something like below:

"Good job everyone, hope you like waiting in farking huge lines for healthcare."

My reply was:

"Two weeks ago, we waited in the hospital for 4 hours for you to get your tonsils treated. How's it any different?"

/Thank god I don't use Facebook anymore
 
2013-01-28 05:01:52 PM  

AngryPanda: Moonfisher: My favorite argument against Obamacare that keeps cropping up here in California is that we will have to wait longer to see a doctor because 2 million new people will now have insurance. It's so blatantly, disgustingly selfish. That sounds to me like an opportunity to create some healthcare jobs, but what do I know?

This reminded me of my ex-girlfriend, who in 2008 was a BIG McCain/Palin supporter. Her angry Facebook post on Election night read something like below:

"Good job everyone, hope you like waiting in farking huge lines for healthcare."

My reply was:

"Two weeks ago, we waited in the hospital for 4 hours for you to get your tonsils treated. How's it any different?"

/Thank god I don't use Facebook anymore


My mom's chronically ill, so I've spent more than my fair share of time waiting in emergency rooms. We used to have to wait for hours for her to be seen; now it's usually under one hour. Now, I would credit this more to the two facts that the local hospital has put a lot of reforms in place and the next town over now has a hospital of its own, but still, it kind of shows your ex's statement for the uninformed rant it is, doesn't it?
 
2013-01-28 05:42:10 PM  

maxheck: Weaver95:

Cythraul: Weaver95: They didn't have to be told that what was being rammed through the House and Senate was the largest power grab by the federal government in at least a generation,

the author doesn't consider the Patriot Act to be a huge power grab? interesting....

It's not a power grab when they do it. Although I guess saying 'they' is unfair, since SO many Democrats voted for it as well, if I recall correctly.

my point is that the patriot act is a big gotdamn power grab and it's making a mockery of our rights damn near every day. where was all this outrage when the patriot act got passed?

i'm sorry but I don't think the GOP gives a damn about my rights. I don't believe they've got my best interests at heart and I don't trust them to do the right thing by me.

Obviously you're no constitutional scholar.

2nd Amendment = whatever I think it should mean, and set in stone by Jesus.
3rd Amendment = wtf?
4th Amendment = 9/11 changed everything


1st Amendment: Conservative Christians are allowed to say anything they want, up to and including threats against the President. Everyone else can EABOD.
 
2013-01-28 05:44:08 PM  
From what I can see is that ever since the Tea Party broke that the GOP Voters have been sending anti government tards to Washington just for the sole purpose of farking things up, doing a horrible job and saying no to the President no matter what he says.

I suppose thats why seasoned GOP vets are losing to the nutty fringe tea party darlings in republican primaires. I guess the GOP mantra is get crazy and stupid or go home.

And Republicans are shocked that the Democrats are outmaneuvering them at every turn.
 
2013-01-28 05:47:47 PM  

Weaver95: Cythraul: Weaver95: They didn't have to be told that what was being rammed through the House and Senate was the largest power grab by the federal government in at least a generation,

the author doesn't consider the Patriot Act to be a huge power grab?  interesting....

It's not a power grab when they do it. Although I guess saying 'they' is unfair, since SO many Democrats voted for it as well, if I recall correctly.

my point is that the patriot act is a big gotdamn power grab and it's making a mockery of our rights damn near every day.  where was all this outrage when the patriot act got passed?

i'm sorry but I don't think the GOP gives a damn about my rights.  I don't believe they've got my best interests at heart and I don't trust them to do the right thing by me.


I agree, but for reasons I must assume are different from yours.

Let's say both parties are bad (I know, bad joke; bear with me). I don't believe the Republicans have your best interests in mind. I also don't believe the Democrats have my best interests in mind. What do we do? I want to live my life in peace, with the most freedom possible, to acknowledge my neighbors their right to do the same, and to raise my children and their descendants in a country which cherishes youth.

How do we do that? I freely admit I'm way the fark left of Albuquerque at this point. Maybe you're not standing with me. Our parties sure the fark aren't. How do we fix it? I want to go to a bar with you and have a beer, and I want to disagree with what you have to say, and I want to go home and sleep well. And when we go to work tomorrow, we will work, and we will strive for our families, especially for our children, and we will persevere to create a society in which we can once again agree to disagree.

But how? When? Our ability to communicate nigh-instantly has reduced us to our paranoias. Will we allow the lowest common denominator to command the broadest messages?
 
2013-01-28 05:54:39 PM  

EvilEgg: He stubbornly refuses to be embarrassed by it


Embarrassed? Obama is laughing up his sleeve.
 
2013-01-28 06:00:16 PM  

Corvus: cybrwzrd: Corvus: I would like to see a public option, but I don't have a problem with seeing if the private sector could compete with a public option.

I don't think a for profit health care system is capable of competing with a not for profit single payor system. The need for tort reform aside, there are far too many people skimming off the top of the current system and becoming insanely wealthy for doing very little to improve the quality of medical care.

Well then they would lose wouldn't they? So what would be the problem with doing it?

Also some are Non-profits now.


Interestingly according to articles published in the New England Journal of Medicine the operate considerably more efficiently than for profit hospitals when compared on the basis of procedures that they have in common. Google and read nonprofit hospital, and for profit hospital...
 
2013-01-28 06:13:29 PM  

Grungehamster: GAT_00: Diogenes: "Obama will never willingly sign anything that delays the implementation of his namesake..."

Well, I got further than I thought I would.  Then I hit that wall.

Have they actually forgotten that it was the GOP that named it as such to try to tar him with it? That it was never referred to as such by the Administration until the USSC upheld it?

They invited Obama to their retreat to justify his policies, he attended and answered all their questions without providing any good soundbites, and they complained that Obama crashed their retreat.

They have a history of doing things and yelling at liberals for being the ones responsible (see also: "teabaggers").


the_vegetarian_cannibal: 1. Republicans coin the phrase "teabagger" to relate themselves to the revolutionaries and then claim it was invented by liberals to slander them when it starts being used as an insult.


Oh, it's much, much worse than that. You've seen this famous photo (taken by David Weigel) of the Teabaggers holding their infamous sign at the first Teabagger protest on February 27, 2009, right?
farm4.static.flickr.com


Everyone focuses on the large writing in red and black lettering, but look at the much smaller handwriting in green ink in the lower right corner of not only that sign, but all the signs held by that group of protestors in that photo. Notice anything?

One week prior to that protest, the very same people in that photo started and posted in this Freeper thread, where they not only invented the term, but did so knowing full well what it meant! Even after being repeatedly warned by their own as to its double entendre meaning (beginning with the very Weeners in that thread, the second post overall therein, less than 1½ minutes after it started!), they decided to use it because of that meaning thinking that it would be applied to their enemies instead of themselves! (While it doesn't say much about the use of the term, this thread from five days later verifies their plans regarding that protest scheduled for that very weekend.)

This was months before Rachel Maddow or Anderson Cooper used the term against them.

Here's what They of the Short Memory had to say about Maddow's use thereof, only about 1½ months after the above thread.

Not a full year ― only about 10¼ months ― from the original thread, and lo, they're incensed about NPR's use of it.

Before that month is out, they're even more upset about NPR using it.

Oh, one more thing about that photo using that explicit language: note that these fine upstanding morally upright citizens had an impressionable teenager holding that particular sign!
 
2013-01-28 06:45:03 PM  

Corvus: Yes. even people like Nate Silverman bought into this bullshiat. They are pretending that these program are adding to the US deficit when they are actually not because they are taking money in from specific tax revenue.


I'm a very strong supporter of Social Security. But the payroll tax cut in 2010 caused Social Security, for the first time in its history, to spend more than it took in. The difference was made up by funds from general revenue, which in turn were borrowed. I know this in part because I opposed the payroll tax cut at the time precisely because it would cause Social Security to run a deficit for the first time in its history.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the payroll tax cut expired this month, and wasn't renewed as part of the big tax deal. If so, Social Security won't be adding to the deficit anymore starting now.
 
2013-01-28 07:19:49 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: [img1.fark.net image 77x27] The Fight Against the Heritage Foundation's health care plan from the mid-90s has just begun.

Come on, you dumbshiats. You can win this. You can break Fartfartacare. Guess what happens next? Hint: It isn't going back to the status quo ante, no matter what you reactionary morons think.


Hey, they can dream, can't they? They grew up with "When you wish upon a star" and all that.
 
2013-01-28 10:07:12 PM  
That was some tortured syntax, subby.

Work on it.
 
2013-01-28 10:46:45 PM  

Diogenes: "Obama will never willingly sign anything that delays the implementation of his namesake..."

Well, I got further than I thought I would.  Then I hit that wall.

 
2013-01-28 10:51:25 PM  

Bloody William: Already, 25 of the 50 states have declared, as is their prerogative under the 2,700-page law, that they will refuse to set up Obamacare health-insurance exchanges. Another 7 states have said that they will administer some regulatory aspects of the exchanges but will leave the bulk of the work of determining eligibility for the new subsidies to the federal government. Only 18 states plus the District of Columbia are planning to take on the full responsibility for the administration of Obamacare.

Isn't the ironic result of this that those states will simply get a federal exchange and more power will be given to the federal government in terms of leverage with insurance companies instead of the states fine with Obamacare, which will ensure it's state-run?

Did they think this through?


It's pretending to defy the Obongotron, and that's all their mouthbreathing base cares about.
 
2013-01-29 12:29:37 AM  

COMALite J: Grungehamster: GAT_00: Diogenes: "Obama will never willingly sign anything that delays the implementation of his namesake..."

Well, I got further than I thought I would.  Then I hit that wall.

Have they actually forgotten that it was the GOP that named it as such to try to tar him with it? That it was never referred to as such by the Administration until the USSC upheld it?

They invited Obama to their retreat to justify his policies, he attended and answered all their questions without providing any good soundbites, and they complained that Obama crashed their retreat.

They have a history of doing things and yelling at liberals for being the ones responsible (see also: "teabaggers").

the_vegetarian_cannibal: 1. Republicans coin the phrase "teabagger" to relate themselves to the revolutionaries and then claim it was invented by liberals to slander them when it starts being used as an insult.

Oh, it's much, much worse than that. You've seen this famous photo (taken by David Weigel) of the Teabaggers holding their infamous sign at the first Teabagger protest on February 27, 2009, right?[farm4.static.flickr.com image 500x375]

Everyone focuses on the large writing in red and black lettering, but look at the much smaller handwriting in green ink in the lower right corner of not only that sign, but all the signs held by that group of protestors in that photo. Notice anything?

One week prior to that protest, the very same people in that photo started and posted in this Freeper thread, where they not only invented the term, but did so knowing full well what it meant! Even after being repeatedly warned by their own as to its double entendre meaning (beginning with the very Weeners in that thread, the second post overall therein, less than 1½ minutes after it started!), they decided to use it because of that meaning thinking that it would be applied to their enemies instead of themselves! (While it doesn't say much about the use of the term, this thread from five days ...


Thank you so much for this. I've bookmarked it for later use when I get some pissy teabagger relative whining about people calling them by their childish self-anointed title.
 
2013-01-29 12:57:53 AM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Thank you so much for this. I've bookmarked it for later use when I get some pissy teabagger relative whining about people calling them by their childish self-anointed title.


The Internet never forgets.
 
2013-01-29 03:18:00 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Thank you so much for this. I've bookmarked it for later use when I get some pissy teabagger relative whining about people calling them by their childish self-anointed title.


De nada. I always make it a point to use "Teabagger" instead of "Tea Partier" or some such on any and all forums these days when the subject matter is relevant, just hoping for some Teabagger to complain. Then I have an excuse to post the above links. :-)


Gyrfalcon: The Internet never forgets.


Well, except when Freeperators delete the posts and threads (I saw at least one deleted post already in one of the above threads), as they may eventually do if this information goes viral. Someone needs to archive those threads. It's history that absolutely must be preserved.
 
Displayed 41 of 141 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report