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.

(Salon)   Obama on GOP: "I give up"   (salon.com) divider line 217
    More: Sad, GOP, Martin O'Malley  
•       •       •

10215 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Feb 2013 at 4:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-23 08:23:03 PM
Obama on GOP: "I give up"

Yup, so do the rest of us.

So get Machiavellian and do whatever you have to (that doesn't further expand Executive reach) to put these shiat-kickers in their place and let's get moving on this whole "civilization" thing.

I get that the people pulling the GOP strings aren't completely stupid, but many of their puppets are.

You can't tell me in all the precedents set throughout history, all the subtle rules and bylaws of Congress... you can't find a way to pull a fast on on the GOP and troll the shiat out of them into passing a bill that might help some people.

I'd like to see the future we all know we are capable of sometime in my lifetime,

not a visit to 1938 in the way-back machine just so some inheritance trust-fund monkies that's gambled against the working class (and rigged the game to win) can suck up the rest of the economy for themselves and play Gods of the World.
 
2013-02-23 08:23:31 PM

Snotnose: This is one issue in which I'm 100% on the GOP's side.


Snotnose: It's not a Pubs vs Dem issue either


That's some fine derp, there.
 
2013-02-23 08:36:36 PM

TV's Vinnie: No. The fact is that you cannot run a 2013 government on a 1983 level of tax revenue!


In 1983 the guv brought in 600.6 Bln and spent 808.4 Bln.  In 2013 revenues were estimated at 2.9 trillion and spending 3.8 trillion.  How do you figure anyone is trying to run government on a 1983 level of revenue?

source:   http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
 
2013-02-23 08:40:55 PM

quatchi: Wake me up if you ever find the NYT or any LW source going that far.


Oh look, another insider saying it's biased. Ehhh...feel free to move the goalposts
 
2013-02-23 08:49:54 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Bontesla: make me some tea: If this causes American voters actual pain, the GOP will pay for it dearly in the mid-terms.

The majority of voters are ignorant.

If that were the case, we would've elected Mitt Romney last year.


No, but we did elect Republicans to a 33 seat advantage in the House.  Also, democrats typically perform poorly in non-presidential elections.
 
2013-02-23 09:00:20 PM

tony41454: Boy y'all have really been guzzling the kool-aid. It was the Obama administration that gave us the sequestration. Even Bob Woodward, famous investigative journalist says, "The Sequester was Obama's idea."

Now Obama gets back from his tough golf weekend with Tiger and claims.......
[snip]
[snip]
[snip]
[snip]
[snip]

.............the future of America is Obama. --Wayne Allyn Root.


Thanks for the TownHall derp. You could have just linked it ya know. (townhall.com/columnists/wayneroot)

When you or Wayne Allyn Root media.townhall.com actually can muster an original thought that can be discussed, give us a shout.
 
2013-02-23 09:04:45 PM

FloydA: lohphat: FloydA:  If the Republicans don't understand that, it is because they are idiots greedy, sore losers, and racists.  There is no other reasonable explanation for their behavior.

FTFY

That's the thing though.  If greed was their sole motivation, they'd realize that you can only kill a merchant once, but you can rob him every day.  A truly self-interested person wouldn't be acting like the GOP either.  They're willing to destroy themselves and their entire country, just to prevent the economy improving while Obama is in office.  It's bizarre.


FTFM
 
2013-02-23 09:20:04 PM

Mrbogey: quatchi: Wake me up if you ever find the NYT or any LW source going that far.

Oh look, another insider saying it's biased. Ehhh...feel free to move the goalposts


Brisbane says The Times treats the Occupy Wall Street movement and gay marriage "more like causes than news subjects,"

Hahahaha, does she even read the same paper she wrote for?  The NYT pretty much blew off OWS until it got too big for them to ignore it.  Same thing with the anti-Iraq war protests they ignored while playing cheerleader for the run up to the invasion.  Also the NY Times is a gay marriage advocate?   LOLWUT?
 
2013-02-23 09:25:35 PM
Well, we're boned.
 
2013-02-23 09:38:07 PM

Richard C Stanford: Well, we're boned.


You say that as if you thought Republicans were actually going to work with Democrats to address problems in a rational, reasonable, and honest way. If so, what on Earth ever gave you that idea?
 
2013-02-23 09:46:01 PM
@ tenpoundsofcheese
"just liked they punished them for not getting in line with 0bamacare during the 2010 midterm election."

I know I'm late to the party [sorry, had a few at home already] but STFU 10LBoC.

@tony41454
"Boy y'all have really been guzzling the kool-aid. It was the Obama administration that gave us the sequestration. Even Bob Woodward, famous investigative journalist says, "The Sequester was Obama's idea."
"Did you know the average government janitor is paid $600,000 more over his lifetime than a janitor working in the private sector? "
"Why doesn't Obama mention janitors when we talk about cutting government spending? Because the image of a government janitor or meat inspector would not bring tears to voters' eyes. It wouldn't sell his Ponzi scheme. The media says nothing."
"gas prices have risen 32 days in a row, WalMart executives are calling sales to start the year "a total disaster"...that's a quote..."
"Obama wastes your money on solar energy scams...on wind energy scams...on electric cars that no one wants to buy... on fraudulent biofuel standards that are impossible to obtain. Obama declares millions of acres of oil-rich lands off-limits to drilling. His EPA policies drive coal out of business. And we wonder why gas and energy prices are skyrocketing?"


That is one EPIC, overly-caffeinated troll. Tin-foil [and tri-corner] hats off to you, sir!  WOW!!
 
2013-02-23 09:57:23 PM
King Something: most of America (and most of the rest of the world) sees what the GOP is doing, knows why they're doing it and will put 100% of the blame on the GOP

not my coworkers, man.
 
2013-02-23 10:04:55 PM
Mentat:
[i1282.photobucket.com image 568x346]
[i1282.photobucket.com image 550x412]
[i1282.photobucket.com image 513x315]


wait wait wait
I am confused. That period between the last two recessions, Nov 2001 to Dec 2007, WHO was president again? Bush? He was a republican right?
And spending increased HOW MUCH???? WTF

oh right, it was all clinton's fault
/brb got to go cock-punch some republicans
 
2013-02-23 10:16:02 PM
FTA: Barring a deal, the automatic across-the-board cuts in spending will begin on March 1.

Let's start with Congress.
 
2013-02-23 10:22:27 PM

Jormungandr: FloydA: lohphat: FloydA:  If the Republicans don't understand that, it is because they are idiots greedy.  There is no other reasonable explanation for their behavior.

FTFY

That's the thing though.  If greed was their sole motivation, they'd realize that you can only kill a merchant once, but you can rob him every day.  A truly self-interested person wouldn't be acting like the GOP either.  They're willing to destroy themselves and their entire country, just to prevent the economy improving while Obama is in office.  It's bizarre.

I think you mean a rational self interested person. I don't think the GOP is rational.


Point taken.
 
2013-02-23 10:29:52 PM

ultraholland: King Something: most of America (and most of the rest of the world) sees what the GOP is doing, knows why they're doing it and will put 100% of the blame on the GOP

not my coworkers, man.


Just look forward to them biatching about

-the great healthcare options they have available to them,
-their kids finally coming home from war
-their gay relative they love (he/she's different from the 'others' so it's ok) being able live a normal life and enjoy their constitutionally mandated equal protection under the law
-and that medicare/soc security those evil libs fought to make sure are still there for them when the market pulls the carpet out from under their retirement accounts (which it will, again, it's only a matter of time)

If any of them are female, you can enjoy listening to them biatch about how great it was not to get a wand forced into their vagina for arbitrary reasons.
 
2013-02-23 10:30:48 PM

Mrbogey: All Obama had to do is compromise and do something about spending. He got his tax raises. When it came time to keep his end of the bargain and cut spending he's refused.

If he doesn't want to negotiate in good faith then I guess there's nothing to negotiate.


Do you ever tire of being a lying troll?
 
2013-02-23 10:38:49 PM

2wolves: Do you ever tire of being a lying troll?


Bob Woodward says Obama is lying

Who you going to believe? Lying facts or Obama?
 
2013-02-23 10:39:55 PM

Mrbogey: quatchi: Wake me up if you ever find the NYT or any LW source going that far.

Oh look, another insider saying it's biased. Ehhh...feel free to move the goalposts


So, you still have no example?

Feel free to keep ignoring the goalposts.

My main point here is that RWers continually biatch and moan about liberal media bias in the US when in fact RW media is more powerful and better funded than actual liberal media.

This perpetual martyr act is well past it's best before date and repeating a lie endlessly does not make anything less than a lie.
 
2013-02-23 10:40:47 PM

Mrbogey: 2wolves: Do you ever tire of being a lying troll?

Bob Woodward says Obama is lying

Who you going to believe? Lying facts or Obama?


LOL
 
2013-02-23 10:49:48 PM
No easy off ramp this time. Bwahahahaha,
 
2013-02-23 10:57:47 PM

Mrbogey: 2wolves: Do you ever tire of being a lying troll?

Bob Woodward says Obama is lying

Who you going to believe? Lying facts or Obama?


Your blog sounds concerned.
 
2013-02-23 11:08:34 PM

cman: lordjupiter: They're trying to train all of us to never, ever vote for a n-*BONG*-r again.


Yes it is 100% about his race. There is no other explanation.


I agree and I often compare pres Obama to the Sheriff in Blazing Saddles.

I'm thinking that this one is going to hang on the GOP's neck this time. I have a buddy who works for the government and is looking at losing hours at work over this. He's a die hard conservative republican who hates liberals (except me apparently, must be the big tits) and not once did he lay blame which tells me he feels it's the GOP's fault. That means more to me than the karmic smack he's getting after argueing with me about how government spending needs to be cut and there are too many government employees who get paid too much. This from a guy who is a public employee along with his wife.
 
2013-02-23 11:16:31 PM

neongoats: Thanks Obama, now you are in the place most of America, and indeed the free world is. The GOP is a fount of idiocy, hell bent on damaging and punishing America for re-electing Obama.

Just stop trying to reason with them. There is no point, and indeed, no reason to negotiate with legitimate rape loving, transvaginal ultrasound, militia worshipping, white power, Christian Taliban.

Treat them like the lunatic fringe, borderline psychopaths that they are. Mock them, denigrate them, humiliate them, but don't negotiate with them.


Agreed.
 
2013-02-23 11:44:36 PM

make me some tea: Zombie DJ: FloydA: make me some tea: If this causes American voters actual pain, the GOP will pay for it dearly in the mid-terms.

The people who still support the GOP are going to continue to do so.  They blame Obama for everything.

This.
My father in law as an example.
They hate so much, their common sense is gone.

My mother and father are also examples. Speaking to them about politics is like trying to talk to fundies (their religion being staunch conservatism).


Have you nailed them where it hurts on Obamacare?  That it was (initially) a Republican/Conservative idea?
 
2013-02-24 12:05:25 AM

Mrbogey: 2wolves: Do you ever tire of being a lying troll?

Bob Woodward says Obama is lying

Who you going to believe? Lying facts or Obama?


Given the number of rim jobs Mr Woodward gave to the previous administration I'll say he's lying.

Now that your attempt at changing the subject is done let's get back on topic.
 
2013-02-24 12:48:51 AM

Snotnose: FloydA: For three decades, taxes have been far too low.

For four decades, spending has been far too high.  I started paying attention in the 70's, it was clear even then this day would come.

It's not a Pubs vs Dem issue either, both sides are addicted to spending.

I agree taxes need to go up.  But I want to see some real spending cuts first.  Congress is too adept at cutting a spending increase from 10% to 7%, then claiming they cut 3%.  No, you didn't.  You raised spending 7%.  Knock it the fark off.


Why.

Why was spending totally not an issue for 10 years running up war debt, but now you suddenly want to assault social programs that people depend on to live.
 
2013-02-24 01:07:19 AM
I've been biatching about the government spending more than it takes in for 40 years.   Where does the suddenly part come in?

I honestly don't care about social/war/defense/welfare/SSI/medicare/research BS. I care about the spending %x more than the $x you bring in each year that isn't appropriated to infrastructure.  Is a fish farm in Alaska really part of the country's infrastructure?

Asshats, you have $x to spend.  $x should be your limit.  Make priorities.  Any priorities.  Take a stand, defend them, live and die by them.  But don't keep spending money you don't have.
 
2013-02-24 01:11:47 AM

Snotnose: Asshats, you have $x to spend. $x should be your limit. Make priorities. Any priorities. Take a stand, defend them, live and die by them. But don't keep spending money you don't have.


Exactly. Balancing our books is more important than creating jobs. (Notice how Republicans have abandoned "jobs, jobs, jobs" in favor of "debt, debt, debt".)
 
2013-02-24 01:16:21 AM
Well GOP you have made your bed prepare to sleep in it.

Also no stealing the towels from the congressional bathrooms.
 
2013-02-24 01:21:25 AM

Snotnose: I've been biatching about the government spending more than it takes in for 40 years.   Where does the suddenly part come in?

I honestly don't care about social/war/defense/welfare/SSI/medicare/research BS. I care about the spending %x more than the $x you bring in each year that isn't appropriated to infrastructure.  Is a fish farm in Alaska really part of the country's infrastructure?

Asshats, you have $x to spend.  $x should be your limit.  Make priorities.  Any priorities.  Take a stand, defend them, live and die by them.  But don't keep spending money you don't have.


What if I told you governments don't work like households or businesses.

This rush to cut spending really looks like baby boomer derp to me. 40 years of gimme gimme and now that they're all hitting retirement, its holy sh*t lets cut everything that everyone else depends on.

Go to hell with that, honestly. People are going to be hurt by this tantrum Republicans are throwing.
 
2013-02-24 01:36:58 AM
1. My Father is a PANDA

2. I am also varied in my stuff. my personal stuff.

3. leave it alone

/GOP/GOP/GOP!
 
2013-02-24 01:52:21 AM

Snotnose: TV's Vinnie: No. The fact is that you cannot run a 2013 government on a 1983 level of tax revenue!

In 1983 the guv brought in 600.6 Bln and spent 808.4 Bln.  In 2013 revenues were estimated at 2.9 trillion and spending 3.8 trillion.  How do you figure anyone is trying to run government on a 1983 level of revenue?

source:   http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200



First of all, are you seriously attempting to compare 1983 dollar amounts to 2013 dollar amounts, without factoring in inflation? Seriously?

Second, are you seriously trying to compare estimated revenues and spending figures for 2013 that don't take into account either the sequestration or the recent revenue increases? Seriously?

Is this how you were raised?
 
2013-02-24 03:31:04 AM

JerkyMeat: GOPers are truly the enemy of this nation and they ought to be rounded up and slaughtered wholesale for the greater good.


You're not helping...
 
2013-02-24 05:23:26 AM
Sen. Rand Paul,R-Ky., didn't hold back on criticism of  President Obama's  sequestration scare tactics in a Friday appearance on Fox News' "Happening Now."

When asked by host Jenna Lee what his message would be to viewers, Paul let loose.

"I would say balderdash. It's untrue, unfair, dishonest, disingenuous," he said. "The president is making stuff up."

Paul noted that while local taxes foot most of the bill for police and firefighters, Obama says they will be affected by the sequester.

"It's not true. The sequester is a slowdown in the rate of growth of government," Paul explained. "It's the least we can do."


Obama: the boy would cried wolf.
 
2013-02-24 05:30:32 AM
 
2013-02-24 05:57:58 AM

General Zang: Snotnose: TV's Vinnie: No. The fact is that you cannot run a 2013 government on a 1983 level of tax revenue!

In 1983 the guv brought in 600.6 Bln and spent 808.4 Bln.  In 2013 revenues were estimated at 2.9 trillion and spending 3.8 trillion.  How do you figure anyone is trying to run government on a 1983 level of revenue?

source:   http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200


First of all, are you seriously attempting to compare 1983 dollar amounts to 2013 dollar amounts, without factoring in inflation? Seriously?

Second, are you seriously trying to compare estimated revenues and spending figures for 2013 that don't take into account either the sequestration or the recent revenue increases? Seriously?

Is this how you were raised?


actually interesting comparison..in 1983 the govt spent 1.8 trillion in 2013 dollars.  We're spending twice as much today.  Awesome GOP talking point.  Course then you compare federal budget vs GDP and learn that its almost exactly the same....But the GOP wont mention that....Or tax rate comparisons that make sense, or changes in our environment, or social spending....or...well the list goes on.  No they will stop several steps back.  Where it looks like the argument favors them.  Thus...800 million, and today we spend 2.8 trillion.
 
2013-02-24 05:58:55 AM
dangit...3.8 trillion, not 2.8
 
2013-02-24 06:09:07 AM
Sequestration was never an option as far as Obama was concerned, this is all the House's baby. That was why he said during the campaign that sequestration was not going to happen, despite it being a provision in a bill he signed. It is not an option. It is stupidity. But you know what? The Republicans have got to learn to not taunt the dynamite monkey. It bit them when Clinton was in office and it will bite them this time as well. They gave it the dynamite and have been pelting it with their own feces. But the dynamite monkey doesn;t have feces to throw back, just this stick of dynamite. And now it's a game of hot potato, and I think that Congress is going to find that nobody else is playing that game. The question is will they stop saying the potato is hot and let it burn them or will they run around trying to convince everyone else to join them in it? When someone comes up to me with this disgusted look on their face holding up leftovers I am going to disvow any knowledge of the leftovers as well as any interest in taking a whiff.

So yeah, they need to just shut up, swallow their leftover hot potato dynamite and get rid of the damned chip on their shoulders. Politics is about the art of the possible, the crafting of compromise that lets government do its job, not holding the country hostage to get your way in everything. You know what we call organizations who take hostages for political purposes?
 
2013-02-24 07:21:15 AM

Truther: Bontesla: make me some tea: If this causes American voters actual pain, the GOP will pay for it dearly in the mid-terms.

The majority of voters are ignorant.

Thus Obama won a majority of voters.

Poor President Obama.  Those mean Republicans - not doing exactly what Obama wants.

What's wrong with them?  Why don't they just forget their principles and do whatever he wants?

Stoopid jerks!


What principles would you be talking about? The turn on a dime we're against spending principle that only happened after Obama was elected or was
it the oppose Obama no matter what principle - the if he's for it we're against it thing. Or maybe it's the he's a socialist communist nazi dictator principle because
he's black thing. I believe it's the last one they cannot reconcile their racial hatred against that which is best for the country.
 
2013-02-24 07:35:08 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: cman: Uranus Is Huge!: cman is backsliding.

Que?

For a while there, you seemed to be on the cusp of shedding your conservative blinders.


I have cman favourited as 'Sane Libertarian' - I thought we'd be seeing a Weaver95-esque conversion from Republican to conservative-leaning democrat.

Still, plenty of time for that to happen in the future.
 
2013-02-24 10:04:12 AM

King Something: Added Martin O'Malley, the governor of Maryland: "I think he's long-term optimistic. Short-term, he believes Republicans seem hell-bent on slowing job recovery through sequestration, which in some perverse way they see as a win."

The GOP sees it as a win because they are about to make something happen that Obama does not want to happen.

What they don't seem to realize is that most of America (and most of the rest of the world) sees what the GOP is doing, knows why they're doing it and will put 100% of the blame on the GOP for anything and everything bad that happens as a result of their failure to even try to make a deal.


What exactly did the GOP do, you mega-geniuses?

The reason the sequester has more spending cuts in the Defense budget is because OBAMA proposed it to avoid cuts that would affect social programs.

Now Obama is lying and going back on his word. He previously said he would not allow these spending cuts to be reversed without a deal to make other cuts. Now he thinks he has the political clout to raise taxes without cuts. So he's going back on his word and statements that were made in 2011.

These cuts amount to a win for Obama, because its only 2% and mostly in areas outside of entitlements.

But Obama, being the lying political douchebag that he is, can't waste an opportunity to use the cuts as an opportunity to blame Repubs for something OBAMA proposed 2 years ago.

History will not be kind to this man and his team of prevaricators. And we should be cutting 10% instead of 2%. To do that, we would need bonafide leadership instead the Democrats 'stinky finger in the wind' version.
 
2013-02-24 10:26:30 AM

tony41454: The sequester was originated in the White House (from the Washington Post):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester -d eal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_print.html


Hey look, it's the racist farker who went on that racist rant about hanging Obama in from of his daughters on the whitehouse lawn.

anyone got that screenshot?

any thoughts on that you cowardly piece of shait? Or will you just continue to pretend your problem with this president is rooted in policy?

/go on, speak up, don't hide your true self any longer.
 
2013-02-24 10:32:24 AM

Animatronik: But Obama, being the lying political douchebag that he is, can't waste an opportunity to use the cuts as an opportunity to blame Repubs for something OBAMA proposed 2 years ago.


Lying?  Probably.  Douche?  Depends on perspective.

Here's my problem.  The idea of sequester was first used in Gramm Rudman in 1985.  A VERY conservative piece of legislation.  The current executive found himself in a corner, and proposed a trick from the republican play book.

It was conservative legislation then, it's conservative legislation now.  The difference?  This time a Democrat proposed it and out conservatived the "conservatives".  Throw in a little spin and the Republicans don't have any out.  They flat out lost the argument.

As a conservative first, I have to applaud the man for pushing through conservative legislation.  The fact that he has a D next to his name is, as it should be, immaterial.  How could you possibly see any different unless you're just a partisan hack with no intention of improving the country?
 
2013-02-24 11:49:18 AM

rohar: Animatronik: But Obama, being the lying political douchebag that he is, can't waste an opportunity to use the cuts as an opportunity to blame Repubs for something OBAMA proposed 2 years ago.

Lying?  Probably.  Douche?  Depends on perspective.

Here's my problem.  The idea of sequester was first used in Gramm Rudman in 1985.  A VERY conservative piece of legislation.  The current executive found himself in a corner, and proposed a trick from the republican play book.

It was conservative legislation then, it's conservative legislation now.  The difference?  This time a Democrat proposed it and out conservatived the "conservatives".  Throw in a little spin and the Republicans don't have any out.  They flat out lost the argument.

As a conservative first, I have to applaud the man for pushing through conservative legislation.  The fact that he has a D next to his name is, as it should be, immaterial.  How could you possibly see any different unless you're just a partisan hack with no intention of improving the country?


The point is that Obama proposed these cuts to get a deal with Republicans, which he has conveniently forgotten because he thinks that he can have a spending party now that he's been reelected. The net impact of these cuts will not be huge.

If a D proposes spending cuts, I am all for it. IF a D proposes no spending cuts, I think voters need to be made aware of what the consequences will be. Using Republicans and Bush and whatever else as an argument for no cuts, during the biggest spending administration in U.S. history, isn't going to work. As long as Democrats oppose real spending cuts a substantial group of people will work to get them out of office.
 
2013-02-24 11:54:13 AM

Animatronik: If a D proposes spending cuts, I am all for it.


Bullshait.
 
2013-02-24 12:15:26 PM

namatad: Imagine DEMS turning out and taking back state houses? WHOOPS, now the DEMS can redistrict their state??


In 2010, that was just the fortune of good timing for the GOP.  They took state houses at the same time that the census was complete, which is when best gerrymander takes place.  That won't happen again until 2020.
 
2013-02-24 12:43:59 PM
GOP ideology has been circling the dustbin of history for years now, they show no remorse for or acknowledgement of the terrible path they put this nation on last decade. They must be stopped and removed from power by any means necessary lest they drag the country down the toilet with their lies, failed ideas, and other delusions.
 
2013-02-24 12:48:55 PM

unyon: namatad: Imagine DEMS turning out and taking back state houses? WHOOPS, now the DEMS can redistrict their state??

In 2010, that was just the fortune of good timing for the GOP.  They took state houses at the same time that the census was complete, which is when best gerrymander takes place.  That won't happen again until 2020.


Obama should just start treating the GOP majority in the House for what it is, illegitimate. Dem candidates for the House got half a million more votes around the country than the GOP, and yet the GOP has a majority by several dozen seats. The more Obama brings this up when discussing the situation with the House, the better.
 
2013-02-24 12:52:16 PM

Animatronik: If a D proposes spending cuts, I am all for it. IF a D proposes no spending cuts, I think voters need to be made aware of what the consequences will be. Using Republicans and Bush and whatever else as an argument for no cuts, during the biggest spending administration in U.S. history, isn't going to work. As long as Democrats oppose real spending cuts a substantial group of people will work to get them out of office.


Reality below, folks, typical right-wing delusion above.

cloudfront.mediamatters.org
 
Displayed 50 of 217 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report