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.

(WTOP)   How much money are the Obamas worth? Well, it's somewhere between $1.8 million and $5.8 million. Oh, you'd like him to be more specific? Well, who are you to ask questions of our liege?   (wtop.com) divider line 239
    More: Stupid, obama, Michelle Obama, White House released, Vice President Joe Biden  
•       •       •

822 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 May 2013 at 10:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-16 01:01:22 PM  

jayhawk88: jehovahs witness protection: He's going to need that money for smokes and baggy pants male hookers in the federal prison.

In all seriousness, what would it take for a sitting President to be tried, convicted, and sentenced to pound-me-in-the-ass federal prison? If Obama held a new conference, got up to the podium, announced "Ladies and Gentlemen, I am going to murder an orphan child", then pulled out a 9mm and a baby and shot it in the head.....maybe?


Rpublicans would just complain that Obama wasn't doing enough to decrease the number of orphans.
 
2013-05-16 01:01:45 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: PC LOAD LETTER: Name a President that wasn't part of the elite, either socially or financially.

Truman died poor.


t2.gstatic.com
RIP
 
2013-05-16 01:03:01 PM  

Pocket Ninja: kronicfeld: If you'd like him to be more specific, you should petition your representatives in the federal government to revise the disclosure forms to require more specificity. Of course, they won't, because then THEY would have to be more specific as well. But that is probably still Obama's fault somehow.

Look, buddy. If there's one thing the Right can't stand, it's hypocrisy.


You're talkin'  about the party of Larry Craig and David "Diaperboy" Vitter? Bwahaahaa! The party of "Family values Newt", Michele "I married a ghey" Bachmann, John "bangin my friend's wife" Ensign? That party?? The party of Mark Foley and drug-addict Rush doesn't like hypocrisy? Well, I'll be. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2013-05-16 01:04:25 PM  
The Obamas are priceless.

It's too bad there aren't more Americans (real Americans who actually care for everyone) like them.
 
2013-05-16 01:07:00 PM  

Musikslayer: Pocket Ninja: kronicfeld: If you'd like him to be more specific, you should petition your representatives in the federal government to revise the disclosure forms to require more specificity. Of course, they won't, because then THEY would have to be more specific as well. But that is probably still Obama's fault somehow.

Look, buddy. If there's one thing the Right can't stand, it's hypocrisy.

You're talkin'  about the party of Larry Craig and David "Diaperboy" Vitter? Bwahaahaa! The party of "Family values Newt", Michele "I married a ghey" Bachmann, John "bangin my friend's wife" Ensign? That party?? The party of Mark Foley and drug-addict Rush doesn't like hypocrisy? Well, I'll be. Thanks for clearing that up.


Not familiar with  Pocket Ninja, I take it?

welcometofark.jpg
 
2013-05-16 01:12:40 PM  

jayhawk88: jehovahs witness protection: He's going to need that money for smokes and baggy pants male hookers in the federal prison.

In all seriousness, what would it take for a sitting President to be tried, convicted, and sentenced to pound-me-in-the-ass federal prison? If Obama held a new conference, got up to the podium, announced "Ladies and Gentlemen, I am going to murder an orphan child", then pulled out a 9mm and a baby and shot it in the head.....maybe?


Nah.  It would be defended as a ham-handed though perfectly legitimate fifth trimester abortion, and yet  another example of why nobody should be allowed to own a gun.

Republicans would ridicule the choice of a 9mm as proof that 0bammy is a pansy.
 
2013-05-16 01:16:40 PM  
the only time I care about how much someone makes is when they complain about how low their taxes are, while simultaneously earning percentage points in Arruba and Switzerland.
 
2013-05-16 01:23:48 PM  

Pocket Ninja: kronicfeld: If you'd like him to be more specific, you should petition your representatives in the federal government to revise the disclosure forms to require more specificity. Of course, they won't, because then THEY would have to be more specific as well. But that is probably still Obama's fault somehow.

Look, buddy. If there's one thing the Right can't stand, it's hypocrisy. That's why they have no patience for people like George Soros who call for "tax reform" and yet CHOOSE not to donate all their extra money to the IRS. You know that you're allowed to do that, right? If you feel like the government should have more money or that your taxes aren't high enough, you can give all your extra money to the IRS. Hell, they'll need it pay bail with all these investigations going on. But what does it say when a man like Soros wants all of US to pay more, but he's not willing to give any more in the first place? It says HYPOCRITE.

And Al Gore. Don't even get me started on Al Gore and all his environmentalists goons. These people want us to live in the dark ages and not have electricity and worship Mother Earth, which they call Gaya, no surprise there, and yet they live in their 20,000 square foot mansions and jet all over the world in their jet planes burning oil just for the heck of it. "Do as I say, not as I do," that's the mantra. Well, you know what that says? HYPOCRITE. That's what.

And so here we are with Obama's taxes. What was it that liberals were wetting their pants over during the 2012 election? What was that, again? Oh, that's right -- Mitt Romney's taxes. His net worth. They wanted to know everything about him, every little worker he fired and every little corporation he chopped up and every little show horse he purchased for his wife. Tell us more, tell us more, they kept screaming. I've told you what I have to, he'd intone. Not enough, not enough, they'd whimper. I'm following the law, he'd say. We don't care about the law, we want to know, they'd lame ...


This is weapons-grade stupid.

As has been pointed out, Obama did reveal his assets.  Those assets, like most assets, cannot have an accurate dollar value assigned to them unless they are sold.

As for Mitt Romney's taxes, Obama did reveal his tax returns for the years he wished Mitt Romney to reveal.  Indeed the person who started this release your tax return meme was Mitt's father who was clear that no one who could not do so should allowed into high office.  Indeed, the amount of grief that Romney took over not releasing those forms makes it clear that there was something in them beyond "more of the same."   I would advice both parties to not let any candidate any platform who can't do it.

As for Soros.  Well duh he does not pay more taxes then he has to.    This is just as dumb as liberal who get high and mighty when they learned Ayn Rand collected entitlements she thought the government should not be giving out.   Neither is/was a hypocrite because of it. (And yes, I did say just that in a Fark thread on that very issue.)    One lives with the system as it is now.  One does not volunteer to put oneself at a disadvantage over those with different ideologies.    I am sure Soros will pay those taxes if they are imposed as he suggests.

Al Gore has never said that people should not fly on planes.  Indeed if you speak around the world it is a practical necessity.   Nor has he ever said one can't live in a big house.  Though it might be pointed out, that house also contains offices for businesses.   He also pays the higher rates to get clean energy that he says that those who can afford it should and done the energy-saving measures he suggests people do.

And if you say that Al Gore says we should live in the dark ages then you are nothing more than a liar.  Nor do the vast majority of environmentalists suggest that we worship "Mother Earth" or Gaia.

Heck, you you even know what Gaia is supposed to be about?  Or the scientists who support or oppose it say?  Give a hint, even the most anti-Gaia scientists will tell you about man-made climate change.  See for example: Peter Ward's The Medea Hypothesis.
 
2013-05-16 01:29:32 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: This is weapons-grade stupid.


That's the joke.
 
2013-05-16 01:34:01 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: This is weapons-grade stupid.


movieimages.org

Here are  TheMysteriousStrangerMusikslayer, and a few of their friends at the last Fark party.
 
2013-05-16 01:41:55 PM  
I'm more interested in what Boehner is invested in.  That information would be a lot more useful.
 
2013-05-16 01:50:35 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: This is weapons-grade stupid.


i887.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-16 01:50:37 PM  

PreMortem: PC LOAD LETTER: Name a President that wasn't part of the elite, either socially or financially.

Truman


Clinton, Nixon, Grant, etc...

A lot of them become wealthy afterward, but plenty come from modest means.
 
2013-05-16 01:52:55 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: Pocket Ninja: kronicfeld: If you'd like him to be more specific, you should petition your representatives in the federal government to revise the disclosure forms to require more specificity. Of course, they won't, because then THEY would have to be more specific as well. But that is probably still Obama's fault somehow.

Look, buddy. If there's one thing the Right can't stand, it's hypocrisy. That's why they have no patience for people like George Soros who call for "tax reform" and yet CHOOSE not to donate all their extra money to the IRS. You know that you're allowed to do that, right? If you feel like the government should have more money or that your taxes aren't high enough, you can give all your extra money to the IRS. Hell, they'll need it pay bail with all these investigations going on. But what does it say when a man like Soros wants all of US to pay more, but he's not willing to give any more in the first place? It says HYPOCRITE.

And Al Gore. Don't even get me started on Al Gore and all his environmentalists goons. These people want us to live in the dark ages and not have electricity and worship Mother Earth, which they call Gaya, no surprise there, and yet they live in their 20,000 square foot mansions and jet all over the world in their jet planes burning oil just for the heck of it. "Do as I say, not as I do," that's the mantra. Well, you know what that says? HYPOCRITE. That's what.

And so here we are with Obama's taxes. What was it that liberals were wetting their pants over during the 2012 election? What was that, again? Oh, that's right -- Mitt Romney's taxes. His net worth. They wanted to know everything about him, every little worker he fired and every little corporation he chopped up and every little show horse he purchased for his wife. Tell us more, tell us more, they kept screaming. I've told you what I have to, he'd intone. Not enough, not enough, they'd whimper. I'm following the law, he'd say. We don't care about the law, we want to kno ...


chestofbooks.com
 
2013-05-16 01:53:48 PM  

bdub77: RexTalionis: PC LOAD LETTER: Name a President that wasn't part of the elite, either socially or financially.

Harry Truman.

He was part of the social elite. That's how he became President.


You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2013-05-16 01:54:42 PM  
Subby's still butthurt over President Obama knowing how many houses he has, I see.

/GOP: the only party that refers to President Obama by regal titles
 
2013-05-16 01:54:55 PM  
That's it, Obama just lost my vote in the next election.
 
2013-05-16 01:57:37 PM  

fsbilly: bdub77: RexTalionis: PC LOAD LETTER: Name a President that wasn't part of the elite, either socially or financially.

Harry Truman.

He was part of the social elite. That's how he became President.

You have no idea what you're talking about.


I don't know - the United States Senate seems like it might be a good place to run into the social elite.
 
2013-05-16 02:09:05 PM  
Jesus Christ, people on here still don't know who Pocket Ninja is?  Even worse, you spend time on here and can't spot satire?  Pull your heads out of your asses, people!

Personally, I'm appalled that two highly-successful lawyers, one of whom has two bestselling books and over a decade at the highest echelons of government service, in the most powerful and wealthy nation on earth has some serious bucks in the bank.  Appalled!

For the record, retards, that too was not meant to be taken seriously!
 
2013-05-16 02:11:56 PM  
What is this relevant to?
 
2013-05-16 02:11:59 PM  

Danger Mouse: Romeny runs for office and every day you hear about his wealth, how much money he has, and rumors are spread about his tax returns.

Actually ask what a sitting President is worth and the libtards scream.


Actually a better comparison would be the treatment Kerry got in 2004. He was richer than Romney was when he ran.
 
2013-05-16 02:15:10 PM  

Citrate1007: What is this relevant to?


The Plutocracy that Reagan and company created that has systematically turned our society into a two-tired system where the poor work their entire lives to make the rich richer?
 
2013-05-16 02:21:52 PM  
You know, Obama has released his tax returns going back something like 15 years now. Before that his income probably wasn't all that much, and they didn't have a lot of tangible assets at that point. If you want to know how much he's made over that period of time, you could probably figure it out without too much trouble. The real question on his net worth is simply "hasn't had his house appraised recently". Not really a big deal.
 
2013-05-16 02:23:48 PM  

Citrate1007: What is this relevant to?


Whether you vote for him in the next election or not, duh.
 
2013-05-16 02:25:05 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Well, I would go farther and mention the gallows, but the senate will never allow barry to be tried for treason.


Wow, you're literally calling for a black man to be lynched.  I think the infection has gone to your head.
 
2013-05-16 02:27:27 PM  
Goddamn it.  It is comments in articles like this that really make me hate Fark (after 11 years of lurking or reading).  Before you even look in the comments you can tell it is going to just be full of apologists because it is Obama.  If this was Bush it would be "How dare he hide everything, what is he keeping form us, he must be getting kick backs from Halliburton".  Obama? "Whats the big deal?".

I do not think this is the end of the world, but shouldn't we know what the leader of our country is worth?  look at the alternative such as in China where the leaders hoard BILLIONS of dollars for themselves and their families.  Easiest way to prevent that and keep politics from getting dirtier?  Public disclosure.  And I think most people here would agree that in general public disclosure is a great idea.

In some way I get it, you see your guy shiat upon for stupid reasons day and night and the reaction is to over-defend him.  But can common sense needs to prevail at some point.  A good idea does not cease to be a good idea simply because it goes against your party.  Your guy is not always right.  And criticism often has some valid base to it.

/Sorry for rant, I have just noticed that I spend a lot less time on Fark solely because the comments are so predictable and unintelligent (in the critical thinking sense).
 
2013-05-16 02:27:28 PM  

elchip: jehovahs witness protection: Well, I would go farther and mention the gallows, but the senate will never allow barry to be tried for treason.

Wow, you're literally calling for a black man to be lynched.  I think the infection has gone to your head.


Why would you say that? His head contains no vital organs.
 
2013-05-16 02:32:08 PM  

UNHbeta19: Goddamn it.  It is comments in articles like this that really make me hate Fark (after 11 years of lurking or reading).  Before you even look in the comments you can tell it is going to just be full of apologists because it is Obama.  If this was Bush it would be "How dare he hide everything, what is he keeping form us, he must be getting kick backs from Halliburton".  Obama? "Whats the big deal?".

I do not think this is the end of the world, but shouldn't we know what the leader of our country is worth?  look at the alternative such as in China where the leaders hoard BILLIONS of dollars for themselves and their families.  Easiest way to prevent that and keep politics from getting dirtier?  Public disclosure.  And I think most people here would agree that in general public disclosure is a great idea.

In some way I get it, you see your guy shiat upon for stupid reasons day and night and the reaction is to over-defend him.  But can common sense needs to prevail at some point.  A good idea does not cease to be a good idea simply because it goes against your party.  Your guy is not always right.  And criticism often has some valid base to it.

/Sorry for rant, I have just noticed that I spend a lot less time on Fark solely because the comments are so predictable and unintelligent (in the critical thinking sense).


Ok, so you've said that hiding BILLIONS is bad.  You've learned today, dear patriot, that Obama has no more than 5.8 million in net wealth.  Why don't you make it easier on us and just draw some arbitraty "outrage point" by which you can villify Obama for having a certain amount of wealth?
 
2013-05-16 02:32:59 PM  

UNHbeta19: Goddamn it.  It is comments in articles like this that really make me hate Fark (after 11 years of lurking or reading).  Before you even look in the comments you can tell it is going to just be full of apologists because it is Obama.


You do realize that the net worth of our elected public servants has been reported in this exact manner for years and years now, right? And that no one ever complained about it before, regardless of the president's party? And that you're a pathetic farkwit?
 
2013-05-16 02:35:44 PM  

UNHbeta19: I do not think this is the end of the world, but shouldn't we know what the leader of our country is worth? look at the alternative such as in China where the leaders hoard BILLIONS of dollars for themselves and their families. Easiest way to prevent that and keep politics from getting dirtier? Public disclosure. And I think most people here would agree that in general public disclosure is a great idea.


Yes, it was a great idea to make Obama disclose his wealth. Which he did. Which is what the article is about.
 
2013-05-16 02:43:20 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Suffice it to say that after Obama leaves office he will basically be sentenced to life


on what charge. please, I'm begging you.  What do you believe the President has done to justify him being sent to prison for life?
 
2013-05-16 02:43:50 PM  

BMulligan: UNHbeta19: Goddamn it.  It is comments in articles like this that really make me hate Fark (after 11 years of lurking or reading).  Before you even look in the comments you can tell it is going to just be full of apologists because it is Obama.

You do realize that the net worth of our elected public servants has been reported in this exact manner for years and years now, right? And that no one ever complained about it before, regardless of the president's party? And that you're a pathetic farkwit?


Kind of the point.  It has been reported in a 1950's fashion (check a box for where your asset value falls into) when we could have much more precise.  And people have complained.  And again proving my point about unintelligent, most basic possible thinking in these types of threads...
 
2013-05-16 02:50:06 PM  

UNHbeta19: Kind of the point.  It has been reported in a 1950's fashion (check a box for where your asset value falls into) when we could have much more precise.  And people have complained.  And again proving my point about unintelligent, most basic possible thinking in these types of threads...


Caught sayof?
 
2013-05-16 02:50:27 PM  

thurstonxhowell: UNHbeta19: I do not think this is the end of the world, but shouldn't we know what the leader of our country is worth? look at the alternative such as in China where the leaders hoard BILLIONS of dollars for themselves and their families. Easiest way to prevent that and keep politics from getting dirtier? Public disclosure. And I think most people here would agree that in general public disclosure is a great idea.

Yes, it was a great idea to make Obama disclose his wealth. Which he did. Which is what the article is about.


And I do get that, which is why I do not think this is a big deal (my personal opinion is that if a complicated hedge fund can be marked to market everyday, our elected officials should be able to disclose a single, accurate number each year...not checking boxes for approximate value of each asset making true valuations almost impossible).

My main point is read the first 5 comments.  They are all pointless, shallow, bringing nothing to the table, simply defending Obama.  They do not defend the the status quo or anything on merit, just saying that it isn't a big deal because people must be jealous.  However, replace "Boehner" for "Obama" and the first 5 comments would be exact opposite... which shows that it is not about the fairness/unfairness of the issue, but rather the letter after the name.  No critical assessment of the issue, no debate as to what our elected officials owe us as a public, no real anything but useless garbage...my only point
 
2013-05-16 02:51:24 PM  

bdub77: Obama's salary is public, as are properties. But his savings? He also doesn't have to share that amount with anyone. Nor do I have any expectations he needs to do so.


I don't mind making politicians do this, as it is supposed to be a check against conflicts of interest.  The problem is that nobody in the media ever does a damn useful thing with the information.  if a guy goes into congress worth half a million, works in congress for 10 years (where you know his salary mind you), and his final disclosure form says he's worth $15 million, you'd think someone might raise an eyebrow.
 
2013-05-16 02:52:30 PM  

UNHbeta19: BMulligan: UNHbeta19: Goddamn it.  It is comments in articles like this that really make me hate Fark (after 11 years of lurking or reading).  Before you even look in the comments you can tell it is going to just be full of apologists because it is Obama.

You do realize that the net worth of our elected public servants has been reported in this exact manner for years and years now, right? And that no one ever complained about it before, regardless of the president's party? And that you're a pathetic farkwit?

Kind of the point.   It has been reported in a 1950's fashion (check a box for where your asset value falls into) when we could have much more precise.  And people have complained.  And again proving my point about unintelligent, most basic possible thinking in these types of threads...


So, what you're saying is.... Obama should rewrite the form that he has to fill out?

Most basic possible thinking hits a home run!

//feel free to call the cops on me for just figuratively raping your ass
 
2013-05-16 02:54:05 PM  
coeyagi:

Ok, so you've said that hiding BILLIONS is bad.  You've learned today, dear patriot, that Obama has no more than 5.8 million in net wealth.  Why don't you make it easier on us and just draw some arbitraty "outrage point" by which you can villify Obama for having a certain amount of wealth?

All billions started as millions.  And honestly $1 of ill-gotten wealth as a result of a public position (any public position) is too much.  And honestly I do not care what Obama is worth.  His wife was a successful lawyer and he is a best selling author.  Of course he will have money.  that is not the issue.  It is people like you that jump to his defense when he isn't even attacked or questioned.  We get it you like him.  Not every time somebody questions him is it a personal attack on you.
 
2013-05-16 02:55:01 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Name a President that wasn't part of the elite, either socially or financially.


Andrew Johnson?

Grant? Truman?
 
2013-05-16 02:55:05 PM  

UNHbeta19: Not every time somebody questions him is it a personal attack on you.


But why question him at all, if, as you've said, there is no reason to at all?
 
2013-05-16 02:59:35 PM  

coeyagi: UNHbeta19: BMulligan: UNHbeta19: Goddamn it.  It is comments in articles like this that really make me hate Fark (after 11 years of lurking or reading).  Before you even look in the comments you can tell it is going to just be full of apologists because it is Obama.

You do realize that the net worth of our elected public servants has been reported in this exact manner for years and years now, right? And that no one ever complained about it before, regardless of the president's party? And that you're a pathetic farkwit?

Kind of the point.   It has been reported in a 1950's fashion (check a box for where your asset value falls into) when we could have much more precise.  And people have complained.  And again proving my point about unintelligent, most basic possible thinking in these types of threads...

So, what you're saying is.... Obama should rewrite the form that he has to fill out?

Most basic possible thinking hits a home run!

//feel free to call the cops on me for just figuratively raping your ass


Not sure what your exact point is.  No reasonable person expects Obama to fill out a different form then all other presidents (in fact it would be illegal I would imagine).  However shouldn't this article illicit more of a discussion of whether it is an effective process, rather then making it "OBAMA GOOD, WHY YOU HATE OBAMA? YOU STUPID"

Read the first 5 comments and tell me that they provide, in any way, any sort of insightful or meaningful thought.  It is defending Obama when he has not been attacked, it is simply ridiculous.  My original point was that coming into these discussions you KNOW that that will be the Weenerss, which is depressing for a site that I actually used to see some interesting points and discussion.
 
2013-05-16 03:01:29 PM  

LasersHurt: UNHbeta19: Not every time somebody questions him is it a personal attack on you.

But why question him at all, if, as you've said, there is no reason to at all?


Read the article.  Not once was he ever questioned.  It is simply stating that he released this document...which he is required to.  Nothing more.  Yet again proving my point... defending Obama when nobody is questioning him at all.
 
2013-05-16 03:02:25 PM  

UNHbeta19: coeyagi:

Ok, so you've said that hiding BILLIONS is bad.  You've learned today, dear patriot, that Obama has no more than 5.8 million in net wealth.  Why don't you make it easier on us and just draw some arbitraty "outrage point" by which you can villify Obama for having a certain amount of wealth?

All billions started as millions.  And honestly $1 of ill-gotten wealth as a result of a public position (any public position) is too much.  And honestly I do not care what Obama is worth.  His wife was a successful lawyer and he is a best selling author.  Of course he will have money.  that is not the issue.  It is people like you that jump to his defense when he isn't even attacked or questioned.  We get it you like him.  Not every time somebody questions him is it a personal attack on you.


I don't even know where to start with this word salad.  Seriously, I don't know, it has no point or cohesiveness.

Well, let's start with the assertion that he wasn't attacked.  Strawman. He was.  Subby, at the very least, did.  Read the f*cking headline.  Or drool, I don't care which.  I bet the latter because it's obvious he was attacked.

Ill-gotten wealth?  How the f*ck would this form alleviate the desire to know if it was ill-gotten? You're just flinging diarrhea around the thread, bro.
 
2013-05-16 03:03:22 PM  

UNHbeta19: LasersHurt: UNHbeta19: Not every time somebody questions him is it a personal attack on you.

But why question him at all, if, as you've said, there is no reason to at all?

Read the article.  Not once was he ever questioned.  It is simply stating that he released this document...which he is required to.  Nothing more.  Yet again proving my point... defending Obama when nobody is questioning him at all.


Sometimes, on Fark.com, people discuss more than just the text of the article at hand, including the headline used, or the general sentiments of various users who weigh in during the thread.
 
2013-05-16 03:04:11 PM  

UNHbeta19: coeyagi: UNHbeta19: BMulligan: UNHbeta19: Goddamn it.  It is comments in articles like this that really make me hate Fark (after 11 years of lurking or reading).  Before you even look in the comments you can tell it is going to just be full of apologists because it is Obama.

You do realize that the net worth of our elected public servants has been reported in this exact manner for years and years now, right? And that no one ever complained about it before, regardless of the president's party? And that you're a pathetic farkwit?

Kind of the point.   It has been reported in a 1950's fashion (check a box for where your asset value falls into) when we could have much more precise.  And people have complained.  And again proving my point about unintelligent, most basic possible thinking in these types of threads...

So, what you're saying is.... Obama should rewrite the form that he has to fill out?

Most basic possible thinking hits a home run!

//feel free to call the cops on me for just figuratively raping your ass

Not sure what your exact point is.  No reasonable person expects Obama to fill out a different form then all other presidents (in fact it would be illegal I would imagine).  However shouldn't this article illicit more of a discussion of whether it is an effective process, rather then making it "OBAMA GOOD, WHY YOU HATE OBAMA? YOU STUPID"

Read the first 5 comments and tell me that they provide, in any way, any sort of insightful or meaningful thought.  It is defending Obama when he has not been attacked, it is simply ridiculous.  My original point was that coming into these discussions you KNOW that that will be the Weenerss, which is depressing for a site that I actually used to see some interesting points and discussion.


First five comments?

1.  Who cares?
2.  Perennially butthurt right wingers
3.  The jealousy is dripping off of you, subby.
Conservatives hate a self-made man.
4.  They sound uppity.
5.  Name a President that wasn't part of the elite, either socially or financially.

Wow, you're right.  Those are some outrageous statements!

You should go back to just lurking.  I think you might be wrapped a bit too tight to comment.
 
2013-05-16 03:04:21 PM  

UNHbeta19: coeyagi: UNHbeta19: BMulligan: UNHbeta19: Goddamn it.  It is comments in articles like this that really make me hate Fark (after 11 years of lurking or reading).  Before you even look in the comments you can tell it is going to just be full of apologists because it is Obama.

You do realize that the net worth of our elected public servants has been reported in this exact manner for years and years now, right? And that no one ever complained about it before, regardless of the president's party? And that you're a pathetic farkwit?

Kind of the point.   It has been reported in a 1950's fashion (check a box for where your asset value falls into) when we could have much more precise.  And people have complained.  And again proving my point about unintelligent, most basic possible thinking in these types of threads...

So, what you're saying is.... Obama should rewrite the form that he has to fill out?

Most basic possible thinking hits a home run!

//feel free to call the cops on me for just figuratively raping your ass

Not sure what your exact point is.  No reasonable person expects Obama to fill out a different form then all other presidents (in fact it would be illegal I would imagine).  However shouldn't this article illicit more of a discussion of whether it is an effective process, rather then making it "OBAMA GOOD, WHY YOU HATE OBAMA? YOU STUPID"

Read the first 5 comments and tell me that they provide, in any way, any sort of insightful or meaningful thought.  It is defending Obama when he has not been attacked, it is simply ridiculous.  My original point was that coming into these discussions you KNOW that that will be the Weenerss, which is depressing for a site that I actually used to see some interesting points and discussion.


If your whole assertion is that we are defending him instead of looking at the process, I agree. But who f*cking started it?  The article and subby, god damnit.  Why don't you go after them?  They're the bullsh*t artists trolling all of us.

Oh, no, couldn't do that, wouldn't fit with your hidden Independent™ agenda, would it?
 
2013-05-16 03:05:02 PM  

UNHbeta19: However, replace "Boehner" for "Obama" and the first 5 comments would be exact opposite... which shows that it is not about the fairness/unfairness of the issue, but rather the letter after the name.


People in this thread have pointed out that Boehner did the same type of calculation and is in the same ballpark in wealth. Very few people gave a shiat. I certainly didn't.
 
2013-05-16 03:05:50 PM  

coeyagi: UNHbeta19: coeyagi:

Ok, so you've said that hiding BILLIONS is bad.  You've learned today, dear patriot, that Obama has no more than 5.8 million in net wealth.  Why don't you make it easier on us and just draw some arbitraty "outrage point" by which you can villify Obama for having a certain amount of wealth?

All billions started as millions.  And honestly $1 of ill-gotten wealth as a result of a public position (any public position) is too much.  And honestly I do not care what Obama is worth.  His wife was a successful lawyer and he is a best selling author.  Of course he will have money.  that is not the issue.  It is people like you that jump to his defense when he isn't even attacked or questioned.  We get it you like him.  Not every time somebody questions him is it a personal attack on you.

I don't even know where to start with this word salad.  Seriously, I don't know, it has no point or cohesiveness.

Well, let's start with the assertion that he wasn't attacked.  Strawman. He was.  Subby, at the very least, did.  Read the f*cking headline.  Or drool, I don't care which.  I bet the latter because it's obvious he was attacked.

Ill-gotten wealth?  How the f*ck would this form alleviate the desire to know if it was ill-gotten? You're just flinging diarrhea around the thread, bro.


You are right I am actually a barely literate Mongoloid that happened to find a computer.  Does that deep place within you that tingles whenever you interpret the slightest slight towards Obama feel better now?  I certainly hope so
 
2013-05-16 03:08:35 PM  

coeyagi: UNHbeta19: coeyagi: UNHbeta19: BMulligan: UNHbeta19: Goddamn it.  It is comments in articles like this that really make me hate Fark (after 11 years of lurking or reading).  Before you even look in the comments you can tell it is going to just be full of apologists because it is Obama.

You do realize that the net worth of our elected public servants has been reported in this exact manner for years and years now, right? And that no one ever complained about it before, regardless of the president's party? And that you're a pathetic farkwit?

Kind of the point.   It has been reported in a 1950's fashion (check a box for where your asset value falls into) when we could have much more precise.  And people have complained.  And again proving my point about unintelligent, most basic possible thinking in these types of threads...

So, what you're saying is.... Obama should rewrite the form that he has to fill out?

Most basic possible thinking hits a home run!

//feel free to call the cops on me for just figuratively raping your ass

Not sure what your exact point is.  No reasonable person expects Obama to fill out a different form then all other presidents (in fact it would be illegal I would imagine).  However shouldn't this article illicit more of a discussion of whether it is an effective process, rather then making it "OBAMA GOOD, WHY YOU HATE OBAMA? YOU STUPID"

Read the first 5 comments and tell me that they provide, in any way, any sort of insightful or meaningful thought.  It is defending Obama when he has not been attacked, it is simply ridiculous.  My original point was that coming into these discussions you KNOW that that will be the Weenerss, which is depressing for a site that I actually used to see some interesting points and discussion.

If your whole assertion is that we are defending him instead of looking at the process, I agree. But who f*cking started it?  The article and subby, god damnit.  Why don't you go after them?  They're the bullsh*t artists tr ...


again the article didn't say anything negative?  So all these comments are simply based upon a single headline?  And I am the uneducated idiot here?
 
2013-05-16 03:11:51 PM  
i1125.photobucket.com
FARK looks strangely familiar of late...

/Drew must be running a click drive.
//This site has been dead as hell these last few weeks.
 
2013-05-16 03:13:32 PM  
Tor_Eckman:

First five comments?

1.  Who cares?
2.  Perennially butthurt right wingers
3.  The jealousy is dripping off of you, subby.
Conservatives hate a self-made man.
4.  They sound uppity.
5.  Name a President that wasn't part of ...


My point was that they contributed nothing.
1.  Would be exact opposite if it was anybody with an (R)
2.  Pretty clear this person didn't read the article just jumping into the defense without having a clue as to what is going on
3-4: Just meaningless
5.  this one is actually a good point and kind of addresses an issue, not necessarily the one brought up, but one that our country really should think about for a bit (oh and Andrew Jackson would probably meet the criteria  although he had a lot of regional power due to his military service, so even he is debatable...)
 
Displayed 50 of 239 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