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.

(NBC News)   Obama slowly tranforming into the dick boss from Glengarry Glen Ross:{To Republicans today} "You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? ... Go out there and win an election." Coffee is for legislators   (firstread.nbcnews.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, Obama, GOP, Republican  
•       •       •

4033 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Oct 2013 at 10:16 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-18 08:47:28 AM  
So he was blindsided?
 
2013-10-18 08:52:59 AM  

Yes please: LasersHurt: Yes please: Alphax: Yes please: They did win elections. That's precisely why they're able to cause such difficulty for Obama. Either he's suggesting this should be a dictatorship or he doesn't understand how congressmen get their positions. I doubt it's the latter.

They did not win enough elections to choose how the nation is run.  And even if they did, refusing to do their jobs for the past 3 years, and trying to bring down the nation from within is not appropriate.

So if you're not in the majority, you (and by extension, the people you represent) don't matter? If that was what I was being told I wouldn't show up for work either.

You're intentionally conflating "shutting down everything" with "normal legislative process". They can do as much of the latter as they want, be as vocal as they want. But they can't just oppose everything and shut the government down.

Those are the only limits being proposed. Nobody is trying to disempower the minority.

I'm not conflating. I actually agree with you in general, up until your last sentence. But in his words yesterday Obama seems to be explicitly saying that.


How? The actual context he said them in is about the shutdown. It seems like you have to ignore the context, then extrapolate what you think that means.
 
2013-10-18 08:57:43 AM  

NeoCortex42: fusillade762: Well that clinches it, I'M certainly not voting for him again.

Would he be allowed to run for Senate and become Majority Leader?  Because the reactions that would be hilarious.


Andrew Johnson, so far, was the first and only ex-president to serve in the Senate. JQA was the first and only for the House.

I'm tempted to start a White House Petition to urge the president to run for Senate again. Or maybe the House, and then lean on the next president to nominate him to Justice.

Government Trifecta: The sound you just heard was every red state imploding.
 
2013-10-18 08:59:00 AM  
i don't remember ed harris and jack lemon threatening to burn down the office if they didn't get the new leads.
 
2013-10-18 09:00:25 AM  
media.screened.com

it takes brass balls to legislate
 
2013-10-18 09:01:02 AM  

LasersHurt: Yes please: LasersHurt: Yes please: Alphax: Yes please: They did win elections. That's precisely why they're able to cause such difficulty for Obama. Either he's suggesting this should be a dictatorship or he doesn't understand how congressmen get their positions. I doubt it's the latter.

They did not win enough elections to choose how the nation is run.  And even if they did, refusing to do their jobs for the past 3 years, and trying to bring down the nation from within is not appropriate.

So if you're not in the majority, you (and by extension, the people you represent) don't matter? If that was what I was being told I wouldn't show up for work either.

You're intentionally conflating "shutting down everything" with "normal legislative process". They can do as much of the latter as they want, be as vocal as they want. But they can't just oppose everything and shut the government down.

Those are the only limits being proposed. Nobody is trying to disempower the minority.

I'm not conflating. I actually agree with you in general, up until your last sentence. But in his words yesterday Obama seems to be explicitly saying that.

How? The actual context he said them in is about the shutdown. It seems like you have to ignore the context, then extrapolate what you think that means.


Not to mention, this is specifically about setting goals that cannot be reasonably obtained and then shutting down the government when you can't obtain them.  They were NEVER going to dismantle the ACA.  It just was not going to happen.  They could have set their sights on other items, pushing for locking in the sequestration level spending (not just for the CR, but for good), or potentially making tweaks to the ACA that would have had bipartisan support (like repealing the medical device tax, which I disagree with, but you could get Dems on board for that).

Instead they chose to tilt at windmills and bring this nation, and the entire world economy, to the brink of disaster...for nothing.  Just to satisfy their rabid base.

The word "compromise" is not the same as "surrender".  The teabaggers were unwilling to compromise, and so they got stuffed, hard, by everyone else, though only at the last minute.  Obama's words are a warning to them - you overreached this time, learn your damned lesson and work WITH the rest of Congress (including your own god damned party) instead of against them.
 
2013-10-18 09:01:52 AM  

LasersHurt: Yes please: LasersHurt: Yes please: Alphax: Yes please: They did win elections. That's precisely why they're able to cause such difficulty for Obama. Either he's suggesting this should be a dictatorship or he doesn't understand how congressmen get their positions. I doubt it's the latter.

They did not win enough elections to choose how the nation is run.  And even if they did, refusing to do their jobs for the past 3 years, and trying to bring down the nation from within is not appropriate.

So if you're not in the majority, you (and by extension, the people you represent) don't matter? If that was what I was being told I wouldn't show up for work either.

You're intentionally conflating "shutting down everything" with "normal legislative process". They can do as much of the latter as they want, be as vocal as they want. But they can't just oppose everything and shut the government down.

Those are the only limits being proposed. Nobody is trying to disempower the minority.

I'm not conflating. I actually agree with you in general, up until your last sentence. But in his words yesterday Obama seems to be explicitly saying that.

How? The actual context he said them in is about the shutdown. It seems like you have to ignore the context, then extrapolate what you think that means.


I'd argue it's inappropriate in any context. And that's not in any way defending the shutdown or anyone responsible for it.
 
2013-10-18 09:05:57 AM  

Yes please: I'd argue it's inappropriate in any context.


I would argue this is an excessively silly and oversensitive idea. Legislators SHOULD convince people of their position, not shut things down like petulant children.
 
2013-10-18 09:09:29 AM  

Dr. Whoof: LasersHurt: Yes please: LasersHurt: Yes please: Alphax: Yes please: They did win elections. That's precisely why they're able to cause such difficulty for Obama. Either he's suggesting this should be a dictatorship or he doesn't understand how congressmen get their positions. I doubt it's the latter.

They did not win enough elections to choose how the nation is run.  And even if they did, refusing to do their jobs for the past 3 years, and trying to bring down the nation from within is not appropriate.

So if you're not in the majority, you (and by extension, the people you represent) don't matter? If that was what I was being told I wouldn't show up for work either.

You're intentionally conflating "shutting down everything" with "normal legislative process". They can do as much of the latter as they want, be as vocal as they want. But they can't just oppose everything and shut the government down.

Those are the only limits being proposed. Nobody is trying to disempower the minority.

I'm not conflating. I actually agree with you in general, up until your last sentence. But in his words yesterday Obama seems to be explicitly saying that.

How? The actual context he said them in is about the shutdown. It seems like you have to ignore the context, then extrapolate what you think that means.

Not to mention, this is specifically about setting goals that cannot be reasonably obtained and then shutting down the government when you can't obtain them.  They were NEVER going to dismantle the ACA.  It just was not going to happen.  They could have set their sights on other items, pushing for locking in the sequestration level spending (not just for the CR, but for good), or potentially making tweaks to the ACA that would have had bipartisan support (like repealing the medical device tax, which I disagree with, but you could get Dems on board for that).

Instead they chose to tilt at windmills and bring this nation, and the entire world economy, to the brink of disaster... ...


Look, all they wanted was for the Democrats to enact a more conservative plan for healthcare reform, maybe based on some idea that was supported by the Heritage Foundation back in the 90s, possibly something that was tested out on the state level by a conservative governor.  But NOOO!  We got Obamacare instead...
 
2013-10-18 09:11:12 AM  

Yes please: 'd argue it's inappropriate in any context. And that's not in any way defending the shutdown or anyone responsible for it.


They threatened to destroy the global economy if they didn't get their way.  That is NOT how our government is meant to work.  EVER.  If they want to make such significant changes to a law passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court, they need to do it the right way and win elections, not hold the entire damned world hostage.

These people are at best sociopaths, and they no, they do not deserve the posts they hold, not after this.  So if they need talked down to like the petulant children they've made it abundantly clear they are, then so be it.

And yes, you are defending them.  Saying you aren't isn't fooling anyone.
 
2013-10-18 09:27:09 AM  

LasersHurt: Yes please: I'd argue it's inappropriate in any context.

I would argue this is an excessively silly and oversensitive idea. Legislators SHOULD convince people of their position, not shut things down like petulant children.


Since people are acting like children, explain it to them like children.

www.boston.com

There are TWO houses of the U.S. Congress, where legislative power is held.
If a bill is passed (say, a bill to repeal another bill) BOTH houses have to agree.
The President has the power to veto bills.
The Congress can override that veto if 2/3 of both houses agree.

What did we have happen here:
The House, controlled by Republicans, wanted a bill that their corporate buddies didn't like repealed.  Their corporate buddies dole out the goodies, and since they like goodies they wanted it repealed badly.
The Senate did not agree with the House.  The bill can't be repealed.
The House therefore decided to not to part of their job the Constitutionally required to do.

It's as simple as that.  Anyone that goes beyond that either doesn't understand how Congress really works or they are trying to propagandize you.
 
2013-10-18 09:37:02 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
Awwww, you mother-farkers. Okay. Alright. I'm putting cases on all you biatches! Huh. You think you can do this si&*. John! You think you can do this to me?! You mother-farkers will be playing basketball in Pelican Bay when I get finished with you! SHU program, nubian. 23 hour lockdown! I'm the man up in this piece! You'll never see the light of.....who the fark do you think you're farking with? I'm the police, I run shiat around here. You just live here! Yeah, that's right, you better walk away! Go on and walk away, 'cause I'm gonna burn this motherfarker down.  King Kong ain't got shiat on me!That's right, that's right. S%^T, I don't, fark. I'm winning anyway, I'm winning... I'm winning any motherfarking way. I can't lose
 
2013-10-18 09:39:14 AM  

Solon Isonomia: Uh, wrong analogy - Alec Baldwin's character, "Fark You," wasn't the boss, he was a consultant sent by Mitch and Murray.

Better to say that President Obama was sent to Washington by 65,899,660 citizens,  ON A MISSION OF MERCY...


Obama should follow our advice and fire their farking asses because a loser is a loser.
 
2013-10-18 09:39:50 AM  

what_now:  I don't know he the leading candidate would be right now.  I'm not sure if there's any obvious front-runners for it, other than maybe Biden?


Elizabeth Warren


Esto
 
2013-10-18 09:40:15 AM  

EyeballKid: flondrix: randomjsa: Yeah, about that. I don't recall the 2004 election results resulting in liberals nation wise saying "Oh well we just have to do what Bush wants then"

No, the 2004 election resulted in me saying "Why did these paperless voting machines in Ohio report more votes for Bush than there were people in the precinct?  Could it have something to do with the president of Diebold publicaly promising to deliver Ohio to president Bush?"

Crazy, 'cos it had me saying, "Wait a minute. Isn't Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell also co-chairman of the Bush Cheney campaign? Didn't he throw out a lot of votes? How is that legal in any allegedly democratic republic?"


The same way Ken Cuccinelli will be in charge of the State's legal representation in any case arising FROM HIS OWN GUBERNATORIAL BID NEXT MONTH IN VIRGINIA.
 
2013-10-18 09:41:59 AM  

quatchi: Asa Phelps: antidisestablishmentarianism: doyner: seekrit muslin

Didn't Hillary start that in the primaries with the birth certificate thing? I don't really remember.

Yes. Yes she did.

No, she didn't.

Internet chain emails alleging Obama was a Muslim began emerging in 2007. No one claims "credit" for them, of course, but the Fwd: Fwd: Fed: chain email was then as it it now a tactic used by right wingers.

In 2007 a religious based e-mag called Insightmag[dot]com published a discredited story that "Hillary's team has questions about Obama's Muslim background".

2 days later FOX and Friends highlighted the article without discrediting it. Hill and co denied the article and any connection to the story whatsoever a day later.

Hill admittedly added fuel to the fire when she made her famous "as far as I know" modifier when asked if Obama was a Muslim during a tv interview but have no doubt that that smear campaign was originated and perpetuated by the GOP.


C'mon now, let's think about this. i'm a big Clinton fan, and there is no way she is dumb enough to have her fingerprints directly on an attack like that. Follow the money. The timing, the insinuation - it all points right at Hillary. That reads right out of Political Dirty Tricks V.2, abridged.
 
2013-10-18 09:45:09 AM  

NeoCortex42: Well, he's not wrong.

When the Republicans win, it's a mandate by the people to follow through on their policies.
When the Republicans lose, it's only because the will of the people was ignored and it's up to them to push through their policies.

Once the GOP embraces reality, maybe they'll have more success.


Hold on there.  Embrace reality?  Let's not go crazy here.  Let them at least become aware of reality first.  Let's not push our luck.
 
2013-10-18 09:46:40 AM  

flondrix: randomjsa: Yeah, about that. I don't recall the 2004 election results resulting in liberals nation wise saying "Oh well we just have to do what Bush wants then"

No, the 2004 election resulted in me saying "Why did these paperless voting machines in Ohio report more votes for Bush than there were people in the precinct?  Could it have something to do with the president of Diebold publicaly promising to deliver Ohio to president Bush?"


Oh, and there's this:
 imageshack.us
 
2013-10-18 09:49:47 AM  

clambam: jake_lex: NeoCortex42: antidisestablishmentarianism: doyner: seekrit muslin

Didn't Hillary start that in the primaries with the birth certificate thing? I don't really remember.

I think so.  I wonder if she regrets opening that can of worms.

Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign was so slimy and nasty that it drained any bit of enthusiasm I might have had about her and made me support Obama that much more.  I still would have voted for her over McCain and Palin, but I would not have felt good about it at all.

I hope she doesn't pul the same shiat in 2016, but I am not holding my breath.

On the other hand, President Hillary would have gotten Congressional investigations rolling on repub transgressions during the Bush administration. Bush would be in jail right now and Cheney's head would be on a pike outside the Pentagon. When Obama was elected the entire GOP held its breath for a year waiting for the indictments to come down. When they didn't, they concluded that Obama was a wimp who could be pushed around at will, and to a certain extent they were right. I'm strongly opposed to Presidential nepotism and would have been very unhappy with Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton in the history books, but a healthy helping of vicious-biatch-in-charge circa 2009 would have solved a lot of problems over the past five years and avoided a slew of others.


No, she wouldn't. She wouldn't risk them digging out Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky for a counterattack. Even without those, no President is ever going to start investigations of their predecessor. They know that if they do that, they are opening the door to the next President investigating THEM. Only a fool would open that door.
 
2013-10-18 09:50:41 AM  
A Democrat won the white house, but Republicans won Congress.  Which seems to indicate Americans want a socialist country with tight purse strings.
 
2013-10-18 09:54:55 AM  

Kangaroo_Ralph: A Democrat won the white house, but Republicans won Congress one half of Congress, and actually LOST seats in that half in the last election, leaving a razor thin majority.  Which seems to indicate Americans want a socialist country with tight purse strings.


FTFY.
 
2013-10-18 10:01:19 AM  

legion_of_doo: Fart_Machine: pedobearapproved: Recall how Obama lost his house majority?

Yeah, it had something to do with the GOP claiming they would dedicate a laser-like focus on creating jobs.  How's that going anyway?

Hope and change much?

/both sides suck


One side tends to suck a little bit harder and with more force and suction.
 
2013-10-18 10:11:11 AM  

clambam: The mishigoss in Washington apparently cost the country $24 billion.


Does that word share a root with "meshugga"?

For some reason that made me think of "meshuggoth" and all the possibilities that opens up...
 
2013-10-18 10:12:39 AM  

iron_city_ap: HMS_Blinkin: NeoCortex42: When the Republicans lose, it's only because the will of the people was ignored and it's up to them to push through their policies.

Voter fraud.  You forgot voter fraud!

Don't forget Benghazi. I'm sure its to blame somehow.


On Wednesday night, as all the cable news networks were covering the vote, I flipped over to Fox to see their take. While they had a camera on the voting, the talking heads were saying that now we can turn our attention to Benghazi and who gets fired for the Obamacare rollout.
 
2013-10-18 10:16:28 AM  

stevetherobot: No, she wouldn't. She wouldn't risk them digging out Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky for a counterattack. Even without those, no President is ever going to start investigations of their predecessor. They know that if they do that, they are opening the door to the next President investigating THEM. Only a fool would open that door.


Yes, she would. Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate, all that crap was dragged out of the closet by the repubs during the Clinton administration. They farking impeached Clinton over the Lewinsky affair. And Vince Foster? Puh-lease. Her dirty laundry has been thoroughly aired.  Compare that to:

-- Dick Cheney conspiring in secret with Big Oil to raise gasoline prices.
-- At best incompetence and at worst malfeasance in the events leading up to 9/11.
-- 4,500 dead American soldiers in Bush's ginned-up war in Iraq.

Now those are crimes--high crimes and misdemeanors--treason, if you will--worth investigating.
 
2013-10-18 10:16:55 AM  

MustangFive: Chief Justice Barack Obama


I would want to see the nominating process for this; do those TP asshats really want to match wits with Obama?
 
2013-10-18 10:28:22 AM  
Not sure if already raised in thread but if you treat someone like shiat no matter what he does you really provide absolutely no incentive for them to act the way you would like them to.

Can anyone honestly expect Obama to play nice with GOP?  Honestly?
 
2013-10-18 10:33:53 AM  

LasersHurt: Yes please: I'd argue it's inappropriate in any context.

I would argue this is an excessively silly and oversensitive idea. Legislators SHOULD convince people of their position, not shut things down like petulant children.


I don't think anyone from either side convinced the other side to change their position. Shutting things down obviously isn't a good solution. Neither is insisting you must be right all the time because you got 52% of the vote. This isn't a BSABSVR argument. As long as they consider each other opponents, both sides are just bad.
 
2013-10-18 10:35:39 AM  

mrshowrules: Not sure if already raised in thread but if you treat someone like shiat no matter what he does you really provide absolutely no incentive for them to act the way you would like them to.

Can anyone honestly expect Obama to play nice with GOP?  Honestly?


Yes. The GOP does.

Honestly, they feel they deserve it.
 
2013-10-18 10:39:01 AM  

Heliovdrake: mrshowrules: Not sure if already raised in thread but if you treat someone like shiat no matter what he does you really provide absolutely no incentive for them to act the way you would like them to.

Can anyone honestly expect Obama to play nice with GOP?  Honestly?

Yes. The GOP does.

Honestly, they feel they deserve it.


This was the same political party whose justifications for impeachment of a president in the 90s ranged from "revenge for Watergate" to "because it was Bob Dole's TURN, dammit!" But, I'm sure the next incarnation won't be as petty at all. In fact, I can imagine them as being, to turn a phrase, compassionate conservatives.
 
2013-10-18 10:45:57 AM  

NeoCortex42: jake_lex: NeoCortex42: antidisestablishmentarianism: doyner: seekrit muslin

Didn't Hillary start that in the primaries with the birth certificate thing? I don't really remember.

I think so.  I wonder if she regrets opening that can of worms.

Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign was so slimy and nasty that it drained any bit of enthusiasm I might have had about her and made me support Obama that much more.  I still would have voted for her over McCain and Palin, but I would not have felt good about it at all.

I hope she doesn't pul the same shiat in 2016, but I am not holding my breath.

I hope she doesn't run, to be honest.  What I'd like is for her to hint at it up until the race starts in earnest.  Let the GOP put all their focus on her in the meantime.  I don't know he the leading candidate would be right now.  I'm not sure if there's any obvious front-runners for it, other than maybe Biden?


owaityou'reseriousletmelaughevenharder.jpg
 
2013-10-18 10:48:54 AM  

d23: The Senate did not agree with the House.  The bill can't be repealed.
The House therefore decided to not to part of their job the Constitutionally required to do.

It's as simple as that.


I think you accidentally the whole thing, but otherwise thanks for trying to teach the chilluns.
 
2013-10-18 11:02:43 AM  

Yes please: LasersHurt: Yes please: I'd argue it's inappropriate in any context.

I would argue this is an excessively silly and oversensitive idea. Legislators SHOULD convince people of their position, not shut things down like petulant children.

I don't think anyone from either side convinced the other side to change their position. Shutting things down obviously isn't a good solution. Neither is insisting you must be right all the time because you got 52% of the vote. This isn't a BSABSVR argument. As long as they consider each other opponents, both sides are just bad.


Clearly, it's a "I am completely stretching and misinterpreting comments in the most negative way because I do not like the President" situation. I don't know that it's a conscious decision you're making, just an effect. You're greatly exaggerating the statement but probably think you're being reasonable.
 
2013-10-18 11:06:50 AM  

Albino Squid: peasandcarrots:
It's not just that. Just as a for-instance, our Republican governor is so genuinely awful that he's pretty much locked Republicans out of the Governorship for a GENERATION. Every single Republican who runs after him is going to have to run against him. We're going to go back to rocking back and forth from two-term Democrats to two-term Independents again.

And at the federal level, running complete nuts lost them at least three Senate seats in 2010. They doubled down on the derp in 2012, and it cost them at least two more that they ought to have won. They'll probably run more unelectable candidates in 2014, which will allow the Democrats to keep the Senate until 2016, which should be a bloodbath given the seats being defenderd. And they've turned the House -- which, structurally, should be theirs for a decade -- into a possible contest in the next cycle.

All they had to do after Obama was elected for the first time: oppose, to the extent that the minority party always opposes, and wait for the correction to the 2008 landslide that was always going to happen, given that the economy was always going to continue sucking short-term. But nope, they had to go full retard, and now they have at least eight years of a Democratic president, potentially a decade or more of Democratic Senate control, a bloody civil war and a bunch of purple states that likely won't be electing Republican governors for many years to come.

And such is the irony of Obama's tenure, that a guy who was elected with the genuine intention of getting shiat done even if it meant major concessions in the spirit of bipartisanship may be on his way to being remembered as the president who crushed his opponents beneath his heel, simply by existing.


The Republicans may well be a permanent minority party now. Imagine if Obama had tried.
 
2013-10-18 11:13:52 AM  

NeoCortex42: fusillade762: Well that clinches it, I'M certainly not voting for him again.

Would he be allowed to run for Senate and become Majority Leader?  Because the reactions that would be hilarious.


Nothing bars him from serving in Congress or taking a federal judgeship after his term is over. In fact, let's make him a Supreme Court Justice in 2018.
 
2013-10-18 11:15:05 AM  

Chaide: thomas666: Chaide: quatchi: karmaceutical: Yep, Hillary came up with that whole secret-kenyan-muslofacist business.  Pretty sure that never would have come up if not for Hillary breaking the case on the nature of Barack Hussein Obama's colorful origins.

That's the RW claim and it is, of course, a lie.

Republicans wouldn't have even noticed he was black if it wasn't for Hillary.

/thanks Obama!

not...

Relax, it was sarcasm.


apologies, I'm sometimes inept on the humor. Lots of tardos stalking me on Fark lately...
 
2013-10-18 11:16:23 AM  

flondrix: clambam: The mishigoss in Washington apparently cost the country $24 billion.

Does that word share a root with "meshugga"?

For some reason that made me think of "meshuggoth" and all the possibilities that opens up...


Yep. Meshuggah = crazy: mishigoss = craziness.

"Dress British, think Yiddish."
 
2013-10-18 11:18:09 AM  

danfrank: iron_city_ap: HMS_Blinkin: NeoCortex42: When the Republicans lose, it's only because the will of the people was ignored and it's up to them to push through their policies.

Voter fraud.  You forgot voter fraud!

Don't forget Benghazi. I'm sure its to blame somehow.

On Wednesday night, as all the cable news networks were covering the vote, I flipped over to Fox to see their take. While they had a camera on the voting, the talking heads were saying that now we can turn our attention to Benghazi and who gets fired for the Obamacare rollout.


The Healthcare.gov servers are in Benghazi.
 
2013-10-18 11:19:36 AM  

Yes please: As long as they consider each other opponents, both sides are just bad.


The Tea Party Republicans consider the House Democrats, the House moderate Republicans, the Senate Democrats, the Senate Republics, and Obama as their opponents.

Obama only considers the Tea Party House Republicans as opponents because that is what the Tea Party comports themselves to be.  Everyone else he considers as a potential or actual ally.
 
2013-10-18 11:23:58 AM  

jaytkay: MustangFive: In my dream world, we'd see Speaker of the House Obama passing legislation in partnership with Senate Majority Leader Biden (with members being pulled into line by House Majority Whip Bill Clinton) and signed into law by President Hillary Clinton.

Personally I'd like to see President Warren appoint Supreme Court justices Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.


I just had a schadenfreud-gasm.

I honestly think that scenario would result in actual deaths from impotent rage.

/Faces of Death Potato--Tea Party Edition
 
2013-10-18 11:30:04 AM  
All you assholes in elected office had better win an election and get elected before you go acting like you got elected!!
 
2013-10-18 11:42:32 AM  

jigger: All you assholes in elected office had better win an election and get elected before you go acting like you got elected!!


It seems even ClownHall agrees with Obama.

Even the chief architect of the "defund" strategy conceded that it was never going to happen. That inspires tons of confidence in those looking to push the same failed tactics again in two months' time. Question: What exactly would another government shutdown achieve? As far as I can tell, the only way to rid ourselves of Obamacare is to win elections. We tried "defunding" it -- that failed, naturally -- and fully repealing it was never a viable option given political realities. (Why on earth would the president repeal a law he himself spent years trying to pass?)

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2013/10/18/cruz-no-i-cann ot -guarantee-another-shutdown-wont-happen-in-january-n1726680

If America was so dead set against ObamaCare, Republicans would've gained enough seats in the Senate to pass a bill repealing it, and President Romney would've signed it already.

Instead, they'll have to go out and win some elections in the future, so President Santorum can sign it.
 
2013-10-18 11:45:50 AM  

HighOnCraic: President Santorum


img1.fark.net
 
2013-10-18 11:54:59 AM  

Albino Squid: And such is the irony of Obama's tenure, that a guy who was elected with the genuine intention of getting shiat done even if it meant major concessions in the spirit of bipartisanship may be on his way to being remembered as the president who crushed his opponents beneath his heel, simply by existing.


...and heard the lamentations of their women.
 
2013-10-18 11:57:21 AM  
Good teabagger?  fark you.  Go home and play with your constituents.
 
2013-10-18 12:55:24 PM  

LasersHurt: Yes please: LasersHurt: Yes please: I'd argue it's inappropriate in any context.

I would argue this is an excessively silly and oversensitive idea. Legislators SHOULD convince people of their position, not shut things down like petulant children.

I don't think anyone from either side convinced the other side to change their position. Shutting things down obviously isn't a good solution. Neither is insisting you must be right all the time because you got 52% of the vote. This isn't a BSABSVR argument. As long as they consider each other opponents, both sides are just bad.

Clearly, it's a "I am completely stretching and misinterpreting comments in the most negative way because I do not like the President" situation. I don't know that it's a conscious decision you're making, just an effect. You're greatly exaggerating the statement but probably think you're being reasonable.


That's a completely ridiculous interpretation, but you're clearly a fawning sycophant, so what else should I expect? I suppose I should applaud your restraint in not calling me a racist. I must have forgotten that it was impossible to be critical of someone's words unless you disliked them personally. Thanks for setting me straight.
 
2013-10-18 01:22:55 PM  
Explaining to them how the laws of the country work and giving them good advice is being a Dick Boss? I think the average person subjected to the disrespect, insanity, and maliciousness thrown at Obama by Republicans would have snapped and gone on a shooting spree. He rarely even name-calls.
 
2013-10-18 03:40:51 PM  

HighOnCraic: It seems even ClownHall agrees with Obama.


So?

It's still a stupid thing to say to a person who won their election.
 
2013-10-18 06:00:43 PM  

randomjsa: /looks at 2010 results

Yeah, about that. I don't recall the 2004 election results resulting in liberals nation wise saying "Oh well we just have to do what Bush wants then"

Elections have consequences when liberals win them in the mind of Obama.


Democrats when Junior was president: "Is this a good idea, or not? It may not be, seeing as he's made some piss-poor decisions in the past. Let's think about it first."

Republicans when Obama is president: "That ni-bong Obama and his whore of a ni-bong heifer b*tch said that breathing air is good for you! Goddammit I'm gonna hold my breath because there is no way I'm gonna let these ni-bongs tell me what to do!!"
*sucks in lungful of air*
*turns red, then blue*
*passes out*

The difference is obvious.
 
2013-10-18 08:54:36 PM  

jigger: HighOnCraic: It seems even ClownHall agrees with Obama.

So?

It's still a stupid thing to say to a person who won their election.


But they didn't win enough elections to accomplish their goal.

Once again:  As far as I can tell, the only way to rid ourselves of Obamacare is to win elections. We tried "defunding" it -- that failed, naturally -- and fully repealing it was never a viable option given political realities. (Why on earth would the president repeal a law he himself spent years trying to pass?)

It's a message to the party in general:  repealing ObamaCare was a central part of their various campaigns in 2012 and they lost seats in both the House and the Senate, as well as losing the presidential election.  They'll have to win enough seats in Congress in 2014 to override a veto if they want to repeal ObamaCare.  It would be nice if they came up with a plan for healthcare reform to replace ObamaCare.  Maybe the Heritage Foundation can come up with something...

Are you purposefully failing to understand that?
 
Displayed 50 of 309 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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