Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(National Journal)   Voters have hit the mute button on President Obama. They are no longer listening to him, and his approval numbers seem to be dropping by about a point every three weeks   (nationaljournal.com) divider line 205
    More: Fail, President Obama, midterm elections, Republican parties, Republican  
•       •       •

1078 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jul 2013 at 10:09 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-31 11:13:54 AM  

Fart_Machine: chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.

Why do you have to repeat known lies about controlling both houses for two years?


Don't bother, I called him out on this about 40 posts ago.... SILENCE.
 
2013-07-31 11:16:00 AM  
Social conservative republicans will always hate him.  The drop in support is part due to the natural second term slump other POTUS see.

But more is that he has done nothing about the NSA and seemingly acted to support it, has let the extension for health care dangle for another year, talk like a more liberal democrat but nominates people within that industry to key positions regarding banking and IP issues, ect.

/He is acting with a souless bureaucrat while pretending to be a slightly liberal democrat.

//No, Romney would not been any better.
 
2013-07-31 11:17:41 AM  

Cataholic: [www.iruntheinternet.com image 750x500]


i61.photobucket.com

GOOD
 
2013-07-31 11:20:09 AM  
It's starting to look like he's not going to get elected in 2016.
 
2013-07-31 11:20:44 AM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: hinten: The fact that he governs less like a president with extremes and more like a professional bureaucrat is probably the right thing after eight years of invasive foreign policy and reshaping of civil liberties.
The downside is that it makes for bad PR.

What's it like, being unable to determine the difference between "extreme" and "Middle-of-the-road Republican from the 90's?"


Is there a question in there somewhere? For whom?
 
2013-07-31 11:20:57 AM  

Diogenes: chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.

Governing in a two party environment requires a principled opposition.  His opposition has no principles.


"Apply lotion to burned area"
 
2013-07-31 11:23:52 AM  
Uh, no.  His job approval has remained almost completely stable for months barring a few minor statistical fluctuations.  why is it every time we see a 1-2 point variance these stupid articles pop up?   http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/23/many-say-economic-recovery-is- s till-a-long-way-off/
 
2013-07-31 11:26:00 AM  

Aristocles: Obama doesn't, never has, and never will be able to effectively govern.

He's a career campaigner, and nothing else.

That's why all you Farklibs have been enthralled with him for the past 5 years, you're duped by charm and can't resist his turns of phrase. Meanwhile, all of America suffers.


global3.memecdn.com
 
2013-07-31 11:26:11 AM  

amiable: Uh, no.  His job approval has remained almost completely stable for months barring a few minor statistical fluctuations.  why is it every time we see a 1-2 point variance these stupid articles pop up?   http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/23/many-say-economic-recovery-is- s till-a-long-way-off/


Because if the right wing derposphere can get enough people to believe that Obama's approval rating is falling significantly, the mere reporting of this meta condition, in their opinion, will help diminish his approval further without actually having to do pesky things like analyze the actual politics of the day.
 
2013-07-31 11:27:12 AM  
Triple Oak:

Curiosity makes me wonder what happened that you went from believing him to never believing him. Like, from a mindset type of perspective, how does this change actually happen?

You leave the qualifiers out of my original post, so it's not that I "never" believe him.  But you're right, "every other sentence" is hyperbolic.

The turning point for me was the healthcare debacle.  When the democrats decided they needed his help in selling the bill to the public, he made some speeches that contained many demonstrable falsehoods.  I started, probably, over scrutinizing his public addresses. And who the fark wants to do that?  Not me.  I'd rather not listen, and just assume that he's spinning for his side, rather than spouting out and out falsehoods.
 
2013-07-31 11:27:43 AM  

Pappas: It's starting to look like he's not going to get elected in 2016.


I've read this silly comment made several times in this thread.

Here's the irony: Obama won the presidency on his campaign of "Not Bush," "Change," and "McSame." So, just because Obama's name might not be on the ballot, he's approval is not something that should be written off.
 
2013-07-31 11:28:44 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Triple Oak:

Curiosity makes me wonder what happened that you went from believing him to never believing him. Like, from a mindset type of perspective, how does this change actually happen?

You leave the qualifiers out of my original post, so it's not that I "never" believe him.  But you're right, "every other sentence" is hyperbolic.

The turning point for me was the healthcare debacle.  When the democrats decided they needed his help in selling the bill to the public, he made some speeches that contained many demonstrable falsehoods.  I started, probably, over scrutinizing his public addresses. And who the fark wants to do that?  Not me.  I'd rather not listen, and just assume that he's spinning for his side, rather than spouting out and out falsehoods.


At least we know Joe Wilson's Fark handle now.
 
2013-07-31 11:29:46 AM  

Pick13: I've been disenfranchised with Obama recently and I'll never vote for him again. Id put money on the approval numbers for all elected officials are dropping at the same rate.


Is that just the really dryly delivered joke?
 
2013-07-31 11:30:21 AM  

Aristocles: Pappas: It's starting to look like he's not going to get elected in 2016.

I've read this silly comment made several times in this thread.

Here's the irony: Obama won the presidency on his campaign of "Not Bush," "Change," and "McSame." So, just because Obama's name might not be on the ballot, he's approval is not something that should be written off.


Sure it should.  Morons are led to believe that Benghazi, Solyndra and IRS mean something.  Morons are led to believe that Obamacare is going to rape and murder their grandmother (not in 1990).  Morons are led to believe... well, I'll let you fill in the rest from first hand experience.
 
2013-07-31 11:31:10 AM  

coeyagi: Aristocles: Pappas: It's starting to look like he's not going to get elected in 2016.

I've read this silly comment made several times in this thread.

Here's the irony: Obama won the presidency on his campaign of "Not Bush," "Change," and "McSame." So, just because Obama's name might not be on the ballot, he's approval is not something that should be written off.

Sure it should.  Morons are led to believe that Benghazi, Solyndra and IRS mean something.  Morons are led to believe that Obamacare is going to rape and murder their grandmother (not in 1990).  Morons are led to believe... well, I'll let you fill in the rest from first hand experience.


Morons are getting you to respond to them.
 
2013-07-31 11:31:31 AM  

chiett: his party had control of both houses for two years.


If you have to lie to make a point, then your point can't be trusted.
 
2013-07-31 11:32:44 AM  

chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.


and they got the ACA passed. pretty remarkable I can't think of any piece of legislation that is going to have a bigger affect on our day to day. he got plenty done in two years.
 
2013-07-31 11:34:35 AM  

chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.


Is this a copypasta from an Onion article?
 
2013-07-31 11:35:28 AM  

DarwiOdrade: coeyagi: Aristocles: Pappas: It's starting to look like he's not going to get elected in 2016.

I've read this silly comment made several times in this thread.

Here's the irony: Obama won the presidency on his campaign of "Not Bush," "Change," and "McSame." So, just because Obama's name might not be on the ballot, he's approval is not something that should be written off.

Sure it should.  Morons are led to believe that Benghazi, Solyndra and IRS mean something.  Morons are led to believe that Obamacare is going to rape and murder their grandmother (not in 1990).  Morons are led to believe... well, I'll let you fill in the rest from first hand experience.

Morons are getting you to respond to them.


It's a slow day.  Just trying to figure out if we should label him as:

1) A "random"esque bridge toll collector that dumps and runs
2) A 5-pump chump who puts up a slight fight and then wanders away
3) An ALT who really wants you to believe he's a true believer
 
2013-07-31 11:36:20 AM  

Devo: chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.

and they got the ACA passed. pretty remarkable I can't think of any piece of legislation that is going to have a bigger affect on our day to day. he got plenty done in two years.


On the "but...but...Bush" front, Republicans controlled both houses and the Presidency for 5 years. The result? Runaway debt and spending (not ONE spending bill vetoed), and a near collapse of the United States.

Great job, Repubs!!!
 
2013-07-31 11:37:44 AM  
I suspect the echo-boomers have finally reached the age where idealism dies and reality sets in.
 
2013-07-31 11:41:36 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Triple Oak:

Curiosity makes me wonder what happened that you went from believing him to never believing him. Like, from a mindset type of perspective, how does this change actually happen?

You leave the qualifiers out of my original post, so it's not that I "never" believe him.  But you're right, "every other sentence" is hyperbolic.

The turning point for me was the healthcare debacle.  When the democrats decided they needed his help in selling the bill to the public, he made some speeches that contained many demonstrable falsehoods.  I started, probably, over scrutinizing his public addresses. And who the fark wants to do that?  Not me.  I'd rather not listen, and just assume that he's spinning for his side, rather than spouting out and out falsehoods.


Change "never" to "not", my point remains true.

So, too much fact-checking a politician? Do you believe half of what any of them say?

Bonus follow-up: If you don't care anymore, why are you wasting time in forums talking about it?
 
2013-07-31 11:42:11 AM  

coeyagi: DarwiOdrade: coeyagi: Aristocles: Pappas: It's starting to look like he's not going to get elected in 2016.

I've read this silly comment made several times in this thread.

Here's the irony: Obama won the presidency on his campaign of "Not Bush," "Change," and "McSame." So, just because Obama's name might not be on the ballot, he's approval is not something that should be written off.

Sure it should.  Morons are led to believe that Benghazi, Solyndra and IRS mean something.  Morons are led to believe that Obamacare is going to rape and murder their grandmother (not in 1990).  Morons are led to believe... well, I'll let you fill in the rest from first hand experience.

Morons are getting you to respond to them.

It's a slow day.  Just trying to figure out if we should label him as:

1) A "random"esque bridge toll collector that dumps and runs
2) A 5-pump chump who puts up a slight fight and then wanders away
3) An ALT who really wants you to believe he's a true believer


The answer is always C, or in this case, 3
 
2013-07-31 11:42:54 AM  

Gulper Eel: Can we get 535 more mute buttons?


534.  My congressman is perfect.
 
2013-07-31 11:43:17 AM  
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-31 11:44:23 AM  

bgddy24601: verbaltoxin: MindStalker: Marcus Aurelius: I convinced that I'll never vote for the man ever again.

Has any president in modern history gone on to run for any other electable office?

Andrew Johnson was elected to the US Senate, and William Howard Taft was appointed to the Supreme Court.

John Quincy Adams was a member of the House of Representatives for something like 16 years.


That's right! I thought there had to be another. The President's post-Executive lives could be quite interesting. Most retired, but a few mounted attempts for 2nd or 3rd terms, and some remained political meddlers until the ends of their lives.
 
2013-07-31 11:47:45 AM  
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-07-31 11:56:54 AM  

verbaltoxin: bgddy24601: verbaltoxin: MindStalker: Marcus Aurelius: I convinced that I'll never vote for the man ever again.

Has any president in modern history gone on to run for any other electable office?

Andrew Johnson was elected to the US Senate, and William Howard Taft was appointed to the Supreme Court.

John Quincy Adams was a member of the House of Representatives for something like 16 years.

That's right! I thought there had to be another. The President's post-Executive lives could be quite interesting. Most retired, but a few mounted attempts for 2nd or 3rd terms, and some remained political meddlers until the ends of their lives.


Considering Obama's relatively young, as presidents go, and seems to believe wholeheartedly in public service, I could see him going back to the Senate.  Then again, with the crap he's had to deal with for 8 years, I wouldn't blame him if he just embraced obscurity and we never heard from him again.
 
2013-07-31 12:11:25 PM  

chiett: Diogenes: chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.

Governing in a two party environment requires a principled opposition.  His opposition has no principles.

Yeah, almost as bad as Nancy Pelosi!


And that's where I write you off as an ignorant crackpot.
 
2013-07-31 12:12:44 PM  

HeartBurnKid: verbaltoxin: bgddy24601: verbaltoxin: MindStalker: Marcus Aurelius: I convinced that I'll never vote for the man ever again.

Has any president in modern history gone on to run for any other electable office?

Andrew Johnson was elected to the US Senate, and William Howard Taft was appointed to the Supreme Court.

John Quincy Adams was a member of the House of Representatives for something like 16 years.

That's right! I thought there had to be another. The President's post-Executive lives could be quite interesting. Most retired, but a few mounted attempts for 2nd or 3rd terms, and some remained political meddlers until the ends of their lives.

Considering Obama's relatively young, as presidents go, and seems to believe wholeheartedly in public service, I could see him going back to the Senate.  Then again, with the crap he's had to deal with for 8 years, I wouldn't blame him if he just embraced obscurity and we never heard from him again.


Kingmaker. The Clintons have been doing it for years, and Obama is their successor. Should Hilary run again, she'll have the one-two punch of Bill and Barack on the campaign trail, raising tons of cash - the very best thing Obama does as a politician.
 
2013-07-31 12:13:05 PM  
Triple Oak: Zeb Hesselgresser: Triple Oak:

Curiosity makes me wonder what happened that you went from believing him to never believing him. Like, from a mindset type of perspective, how does this change actually happen?

You leave the qualifiers out of my original post, so it's not that I "never" believe him.  But you're right, "every other sentence" is hyperbolic.

The turning point for me was the healthcare debacle.  When the democrats decided they needed his help in selling the bill to the public, he made some speeches that contained many demonstrable falsehoods.  I started, probably, over scrutinizing his public addresses. And who the fark wants to do that?  Not me.  I'd rather not listen, and just assume that he's spinning for his side, rather than spouting out and out falsehoods.

Change "never" to "not", my point remains true.  I don't believe in absolutes.  I went from MOSTLY believing him, to MOSTLY not believing him.

So, too much fact-checking a politician?  By me? Yes.  By 'qualified individuals'? Never.Do you believe half of what any of them say?  YES, but I'm always hoping for MOSTLY.

Bonus follow-up: If you don't care anymore, why are you wasting time in forums talking about it?  It helps pass the time. Some of these guys are witty as hell, and I find much to laugh at here.  And finally, a part of me is all HOPE-ing for CHANGE, and if it happens, I don't want to miss it.
 
2013-07-31 12:15:05 PM  
I don't know how he's going to get re-elected with numbers like these...
 
2013-07-31 12:15:36 PM  
secularsage:
I voted third party in the last election because I didn't want to support either candidate. Both of them had me terrified that they were going to further bad policies and continue to let Congressional status quos run rampant. And here we are.

The most disappointing thing about Obama has been how he came in as a candidate who had a certain academic understanding of the US Constitution while also having an ability to connect with people and inspire leadership. He seemed like a modern JFK in 2008, and though I didn't buy into his hype then either (having already endured him as a senator in Illinois where he did next to nothing for his constituents aside from prep to run for president), I was optimistic that a national platform might do good things for him.

Instead, he's continued a lot of bad policies from the Bush era, shown an inability to get along with or to stand down an obstructionist Congress, and he's done the opposite of many of the points he campaigned on. It's pretty clear that the man is either a giant hypocrite or that he's beholden to the people who put him into power and that all of his rhetoric about hope and change was never a part of the plan. He's contributed to many millenials' lack of faith or interest in government (after inspiring them to get involved in 2008) and he's going to be remembered as a president who couldn't get anything accomplished aside from cracking down on whistle-blowers.

I wish Americans could learn from this and stop putting their faith in either of the two big parties. They're just two sides of the same coin, and both of them will do and say anything to hold on to their power. Next time, vote for the presidential candidate who stands up for what you believe in, not the guy (or gal) who got into the big money machine in exchange for his or her obedience.


Spot on about Obama, although I would add that since his administration is so very secretive that there are no doubt a few nasty surprises that will be sprung on us after he leaves office.

But about the third party stuff, just how is that going to happen? Hell money, and the lying TV ads and carefully placed PR disguised as news reports that it buys, sways even the local elections nowadays, and just about rules the state elections. The national elections are just a farce, a bad joke poorly told. They weed out anyone good in the first few primaries and only the corporate backed phonies remain by the conventions. It's why we keep getting these "a sh*t sandwich versus a bowl of puke" presidential election choices.

Simply voting third party as a protest vote is throwing your vote away until the system is changed. The question is "how do we change the system?" From within of course. But how can you change anything from within when you have a large percentage of the population effectively brain washed by the slanted propaganda from the two parties?
 
2013-07-31 12:16:18 PM  

chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.



FTFY: Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years 65 Days.

There was a Super Majority for 65 days before the 60th vote got ill.  Then, ignoring the will of the people and spreading blatant lies (Death Panels) that persist to this day, the GOP resisted and the Senate filibustered every attempt at voting on anything remotely important. Facts have a liberal Bias I know.  Republicans have also set records for filibusters. shiat, Mitch McConnell Filibustered himself.  Obama has done a lot to clean up the mess of the W term.  Don't even try to pretend there hasn't been baltant obstructionism that is completely unprecedented  in the History of our Country.  Since then, Republicans/Libertarians/Fascists have sacrificed our credit rating because they didn't know what it meant.

If you would like I can create a coloring book for you and your like to understand stuff.  Just repeating shiat doesn't make it true.
 
2013-07-31 12:23:30 PM  

Poopspasm: Honest question: do you have to be a federally appointed judge at some lower level prior to being nominated for SCOTUS?


Nope. Supreme Court Justice James F Byrnes, on the court from July '41 to October '42, never went to law school.

Or college.

Or high school.
 
2013-07-31 12:26:22 PM  
Well I'm convinced. I'm not voting for Obama as President ever again.
 
2013-07-31 12:26:46 PM  

chiett: Diogenes:
Governing in a two party environment requires a principled opposition.  His opposition has no principles.

Yeah, almost as bad as Nancy Pelosi!


I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not assume you're one of the many righties with a reflexive irrational hate for Pelosi.  Since she was my representative for about 16 years, I'm very familiar with her record. I'm not aware of her doing anything that could be called unprincipled.

So please do provide some examples.

Oh, and if you trot out that "pass it to find out what's in it" quote that gets taken out of context, you will look like an idiot.

Please proceed, chiett.
 
2013-07-31 12:32:41 PM  

h0lmesdaddy: chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.


FTFY: Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years 65 Days.

There was a Super Majority for 65 days before the 60th vote got ill.  Then, ignoring the will of the people and spreading blatant lies (Death Panels) that persist to this day, the GOP resisted and the Senate filibustered every attempt at voting on anything remotely important. Facts have a liberal Bias I know.  Republicans have also set records for filibusters. shiat, Mitch McConnell Filibustered himself.  Obama has done a lot to clean up the mess of the W term.  Don't even try to pretend there hasn't been baltant obstructionism that is completely unprecedented  in the History of our Country.  Since then, Republicans/Libertarians/Fascists have sacrificed our credit rating because they didn't know what it meant.

If you would like I can create a coloring book for you and your like to understand stuff.  Just repeating shiat doesn't make it true.


There was only a supermajority if you count Lieberman.  And considering he seems to have made it his mission to torpedo every legislative initiative the Democrats put forward, I don't see why you would.
 
2013-07-31 12:34:20 PM  

varmitydog: secularsage:
I voted third party in the last election because I didn't want to support either candidate. Both of them had me terrified that they were going to further bad policies and continue to let Congressional status quos run rampant. And here we are.

The most disappointing thing about Obama has been how he came in as a candidate who had a certain academic understanding of the US Constitution while also having an ability to connect with people and inspire leadership. He seemed like a modern JFK in 2008, and though I didn't buy into his hype then either (having already endured him as a senator in Illinois where he did next to nothing for his constituents aside from prep to run for president), I was optimistic that a national platform might do good things for him.

Instead, he's continued a lot of bad policies from the Bush era, shown an inability to get along with or to stand down an obstructionist Congress, and he's done the opposite of many of the points he campaigned on. It's pretty clear that the man is either a giant hypocrite or that he's beholden to the people who put him into power and that all of his rhetoric about hope and change was never a part of the plan. He's contributed to many millenials' lack of faith or interest in government (after inspiring them to get involved in 2008) and he's going to be remembered as a president who couldn't get anything accomplished aside from cracking down on whistle-blowers.

I wish Americans could learn from this and stop putting their faith in either of the two big parties. They're just two sides of the same coin, and both of them will do and say anything to hold on to their power. Next time, vote for the presidential candidate who stands up for what you believe in, not the guy (or gal) who got into the big money machine in exchange for his or her obedience.

Spot on about Obama, although I would add that since his administration is so very secretive that there are no doubt a few nasty surprises that will be sprung ...


I vote 3rd party, and it's for the reason you stated: it's a vote of no confidence in the two main parties. It's a "none of the above" vote. It's the only option closed to it in the ballot. But it's my choice because if I don't think the candidate or party has earned my vote, then I have every right to give it to some Green Party type who'll only get .1% of the popular vote.
 
2013-07-31 12:41:13 PM  

MisterRonbo: chiett: Diogenes:
Governing in a two party environment requires a principled opposition.  His opposition has no principles.

Yeah, almost as bad as Nancy Pelosi!

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not assume you're one of the many righties with a reflexive irrational hate for Pelosi.  Since she was my representative for about 16 years, I'm very familiar with her record. I'm not aware of her doing anything that could be called unprincipled.

So please do provide some examples.

Oh, and if you trot out that "pass it to find out what's in it" quote that gets taken out of context, you will look like an idiot.

Please proceed, chiett.


Okay, How's this jewel. "We need to pass it to find out whats in it"

Of course since you are one of the people who keep re-electing her, then I guess you are to blame also. So who is dumber the person who would expect people to swallow that line, or the one who does.
 
2013-07-31 12:43:18 PM  

chiett: MisterRonbo: chiett: Diogenes:
Governing in a two party environment requires a principled opposition.  His opposition has no principles.

Yeah, almost as bad as Nancy Pelosi!

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not assume you're one of the many righties with a reflexive irrational hate for Pelosi.  Since she was my representative for about 16 years, I'm very familiar with her record. I'm not aware of her doing anything that could be called unprincipled.

So please do provide some examples.

Oh, and if you trot out that "pass it to find out what's in it" quote that gets taken out of context, you will look like an idiot.

Please proceed, chiett.

Okay, How's this jewel. "We need to pass it to find out whats in it"

Of course since you are one of the people who keep re-electing her, then I guess you are to blame also. So who is dumber the person who would expect people to swallow that line, or the one who does.


farking CLASSIC! Got an actual spit-take laugh.
 
2013-07-31 12:46:40 PM  

DarwiOdrade: coeyagi: DarwiOdrade: coeyagi: Aristocles: Pappas: It's starting to look like he's not going to get elected in 2016.

I've read this silly comment made several times in this thread.

Here's the irony: Obama won the presidency on his campaign of "Not Bush," "Change," and "McSame." So, just because Obama's name might not be on the ballot, he's approval is not something that should be written off.

Sure it should.  Morons are led to believe that Benghazi, Solyndra and IRS mean something.  Morons are led to believe that Obamacare is going to rape and murder their grandmother (not in 1990).  Morons are led to believe... well, I'll let you fill in the rest from first hand experience.

Morons are getting you to respond to them.

It's a slow day.  Just trying to figure out if we should label him as:

1) A "random"esque bridge toll collector that dumps and runs
2) A 5-pump chump who puts up a slight fight and then wanders away
3) An ALT who really wants you to believe he's a true believer

The answer is always C, or in this case, 3


The third option has to be the stupidest one for someone to do. If you have a strong stance in something, why the hell would you make a persona that believes and promotes the thing that you hate? Where is the sense in attacking and hurting your own farking argument? And this isn't in a way of reevaluating and fixing what you originally thought. This is supporting A and hating B in real life while making posts supporting B and attacking A. And after spending all that time hurting A to where people side with B or weaken support for A, you get pissed when B becomes the majority opinion, the exact opposite of what you really wanted?

If any left/liberal/center/moderate is making dozens of alts pretending to be the right and attack anything left of them, who do you possibly think you are actually helping in the end?
 
2013-07-31 12:49:50 PM  

NeverDrunk23: DarwiOdrade: coeyagi: DarwiOdrade: coeyagi: Aristocles: Pappas: It's starting to look like he's not going to get elected in 2016.

I've read this silly comment made several times in this thread.

Here's the irony: Obama won the presidency on his campaign of "Not Bush," "Change," and "McSame." So, just because Obama's name might not be on the ballot, he's approval is not something that should be written off.

Sure it should.  Morons are led to believe that Benghazi, Solyndra and IRS mean something.  Morons are led to believe that Obamacare is going to rape and murder their grandmother (not in 1990).  Morons are led to believe... well, I'll let you fill in the rest from first hand experience.

Morons are getting you to respond to them.

It's a slow day.  Just trying to figure out if we should label him as:

1) A "random"esque bridge toll collector that dumps and runs
2) A 5-pump chump who puts up a slight fight and then wanders away
3) An ALT who really wants you to believe he's a true believer

The answer is always C, or in this case, 3

The third option has to be the stupidest one for someone to do. If you have a strong stance in something, why the hell would you make a persona that believes and promotes the thing that you hate? Where is the sense in attacking and hurting your own farking argument? And this isn't in a way of reevaluating and fixing what you originally thought. This is supporting A and hating B in real life while making posts supporting B and attacking A. And after spending all that time hurting A to where people side with B or weaken support for A, you get pissed when B becomes the majority opinion, the exact opposite of what you really wanted?

If any left/liberal/center/moderate is making dozens of alts pretending to be the right and attack anything left of them, who do you possibly think you are actually helping in the end?



Or they could just be an ass.
 
2013-07-31 12:57:14 PM  
How patriotic is Ginni Thomas? She walks around wearing a Statue of Liberty crown, that's how.

assets.motherjones.com
 
2013-07-31 12:58:47 PM  

Aristocles: Pappas: It's starting to look like he's not going to get elected in 2016.

I've read this silly comment made several times in this thread.

Here's the irony: Obama won the presidency on his campaign of "Not Bush," "Change," and "McSame." So, just because Obama's name might not be on the ballot, he's approval is not something that should be written off.


It's a joke, son.  Because he can't by law run aga.........never mind.
 
2013-07-31 12:59:04 PM  

Diogenes: Governing in a two party environment requires a principled opposition.  His opposition has no principles.


Sure they do, they're just awful principles.

Sort of an "... at least it's an ethos" kind of way.
 
2013-07-31 01:00:50 PM  

chiett: MisterRonbo: chiett: Diogenes:
Governing in a two party environment requires a principled opposition.  His opposition has no principles.

Yeah, almost as bad as Nancy Pelosi!

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not assume you're one of the many righties with a reflexive irrational hate for Pelosi.  Since she was my representative for about 16 years, I'm very familiar with her record. I'm not aware of her doing anything that could be called unprincipled.

So please do provide some examples.

Oh, and if you trot out that "pass it to find out what's in it" quote that gets taken out of context, you will look like an idiot.

Please proceed, chiett.

Okay, How's this jewel. "We need to pass it to find out whats in it"

Of course since you are one of the people who keep re-electing her, then I guess you are to blame also. So who is dumber the person who would expect people to swallow that line, or the one who does.


How come there's no period at the end of your quote? It's almost like there might be additional words in that sentence which change its meaning and debunk your already thoroughly debunked talking point.

The trolls are really phoning it in today. This is like batting practice.
 
2013-07-31 01:01:08 PM  

Diogenes: TheShavingofOccam123: Two Greeks arguing about rhetoric. And so it goes...

It's "meta."

μετά
 
2013-07-31 01:04:05 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: NeverDrunk23: DarwiOdrade: coeyagi: DarwiOdrade: coeyagi: Aristocles: Pappas: It's starting to look like he's not going to get elected in 2016.

I've read this silly comment made several times in this thread.

Here's the irony: Obama won the presidency on his campaign of "Not Bush," "Change," and "McSame." So, just because Obama's name might not be on the ballot, he's approval is not something that should be written off.

Sure it should.  Morons are led to believe that Benghazi, Solyndra and IRS mean something.  Morons are led to believe that Obamacare is going to rape and murder their grandmother (not in 1990).  Morons are led to believe... well, I'll let you fill in the rest from first hand experience.

Morons are getting you to respond to them.

It's a slow day.  Just trying to figure out if we should label him as:

1) A "random"esque bridge toll collector that dumps and runs
2) A 5-pump chump who puts up a slight fight and then wanders away
3) An ALT who really wants you to believe he's a true believer

The answer is always C, or in this case, 3

The third option has to be the stupidest one for someone to do. If you have a strong stance in something, why the hell would you make a persona that believes and promotes the thing that you hate? Where is the sense in attacking and hurting your own farking argument? And this isn't in a way of reevaluating and fixing what you originally thought. This is supporting A and hating B in real life while making posts supporting B and attacking A. And after spending all that time hurting A to where people side with B or weaken support for A, you get pissed when B becomes the majority opinion, the exact opposite of what you really wanted?

If any left/liberal/center/moderate is making dozens of alts pretending to be the right and attack anything left of them, who do you possibly think you are actually helping in the end?


Or they could just be an ass.


Good point. The internet was like a godsend for them.
 
2013-07-31 01:05:43 PM  

mediablitz: chiett: MisterRonbo: chiett: Diogenes:
Governing in a two party environment requires a principled opposition.  His opposition has no principles.

Yeah, almost as bad as Nancy Pelosi!

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not assume you're one of the many righties with a reflexive irrational hate for Pelosi.  Since she was my representative for about 16 years, I'm very familiar with her record. I'm not aware of her doing anything that could be called unprincipled.

So please do provide some examples.

Oh, and if you trot out that "pass it to find out what's in it" quote that gets taken out of context, you will look like an idiot.

Please proceed, chiett.

Okay, How's this jewel. "We need to pass it to find out whats in it"

Of course since you are one of the people who keep re-electing her, then I guess you are to blame also. So who is dumber the person who would expect people to swallow that line, or the one who does.

farking CLASSIC! Got an actual spit-take laugh.


O.M.G.  Did he really just do that?
 
Displayed 50 of 205 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report