We’ve replaced
We’ve replaced their regular server with a well-known political candidate.
(Barack Obama)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: ryszard
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous PRO: Found my boat. | THE GREAT DEPRESSION Next »
» 153 comments
-
Recent Comments
ThelmaintheUS on SEX SCANDALS dissimilitude on Ask Mitt Anything KartoonNotWerk on Vladurday: Your attempt to cap… Danbala on Ask Mitt Anything Danbala on Ask Mitt Anything wickets ebil twin on GOD HATES caffeinatedbath on GOD HATES wickets ebil twin on Ask Mitt Anything Charlie Oscar Delta on GOD HATES FAGS wickets ebil twin on Vladurday: Your attempt to cap… 
Cheezburger Network Blog
LOL, I shall be favoriting this one.
“So what will you be having?”
“I dunno, what’s good ear? I mean here, What’s good here?”
Is the fried chicken any goo…. I mean, how are your chitl… Um, maybe we’ll just have desert, how’s the waterme… Never mind, we’ll just go outside and sit on the porch. You do have a porch?
lol!
Seth made a funny !
I don’t even know what a “chitlin” is, that’s for poor people. Pass the tofu and pineapple please.
Sometimes people clearly demonstrate their ignorance. Congrats, Seth. You win the amoeba award.
I give you the New Yorker Magazine award for failure to recognize the intent of a joke.
I give you the amoeba award for not realizing that yeah, I got it and it wasn’t funny. The NY Mag was satire done well, this was just plain ignorance…in other words, don’t push the envelope if you can’t control the vehicle.
Do you not read any of Seth’s posts? Yeah. Mr. Liberal Mascot of PK is an “ignorant” racist. Right. :/ Anyway Seth, I’m sure anyone with half a brain or half a sense of humor thought it was funny.
Ah, nice comment. I see that you can justify ignorance due to liberalness. Sorry, don’t buy it. Perhaps, someday, when you grow up, you might recognize how stupid you really sound. Until then, Kilo Mike Alpha.
Ignorance? Ignorance of what, pray tell? Tell me, mister “I get the joke but it’s not funny,” what was the joke, exactly? Was the joke about racial stereotypes? Or the awkwardness of saying the wrong thing accidentally?
Ignorance in that your so called joke, if that is what it is, was not very good, it didn’t rise to the level of satire and merely represented bad humor. If you cannot manage the talent required to use satire, don’t try it on fringe issues.
Humor is a matter of opinion, and you are out numbered. You are one moron with one moron’s opinion. You are not representative of anything but your own stupidity.
–
But not being funny isn’t the same as being ignorant. Where is my ignorance, Mr. Backpedal? You missed the joke in your rush to blame and demonize. Straight up, no other explanation fits. Now you are trying to spin it into something else, and it is not only transparent, but pathetic.
–
To be specific, for the UNBELIEVABLY stupid who may not get this: it is making fun of liberals tendency to take being PC to far, and to get flustered when dealing with minorities. I was neither being racist, nor making fun of racists.
I didn’t miss the “joke.” You are obviously too stupid to realize how immoral your lame attempt at a joke really is… too bad. Maybe, someday you will figure it out. I was once as ignorant as you, “but I was so much older then, I’m Younger than that now.”
Oh, and if you have to explain the joke and tell people that it is funny…NEWS FLASH… it isn’t funny. Whinning about PC is the dirge of the ignorant.
I only had to explain it to you, sir. In your ignorance, you thought it was a racist joke. It isn’t, it’s a joke against liberals and as I am a liberal, I can poke fun at my own kind. You see, we always try to hard to be PC. No person of color I know would be offended if you ordered fried chicken, or any southern favorite for that matter. Only us PC liberal types would think it might cause offense.
–
But please, if you can explain how this joke was immoral, I will retract it and offer an apology. But you can’t, because it isn’t.
Let’s see, a black man serving white people talking about fried chicken, chitlins and watermellon….hmmm must take a rocket scientist to figure out that exploiting almost every black food stereotype for a ‘joke’ isn’t wrong… why didn’t you add the one about velcro?
I partly missed his intent at first too. He didn’t mean to be racist, but what he tried to do was poke fun at the people for feeling guilt at ordering foods, or even mentioning anything, whether or not it be in a moderate or rational way, which could happen to be racial stereotypes of any minority. I think the repetition made it seem less like the statement he intended, and seem more like a racist joke, but I don’t think that was his purpose for writing it.
It’s out back with the flaming cross
Wow, This might be the first time I have seen Seth actually be humorous on this humor site. Its actually kind of nice. Like that time I had that fine fried chicken…I mean chitl….umm, waterme….sat on those nice folks’ front porch.
Blah blah…president….thing..whatever…When is someone gonna refill my damn tea.
“Are you one of those… Um, Negros sonny? I heard we used them in the war. Is the rumors true about down there?” Etc, etc, random Grandma prattling.
I do like your tea comment.
That’s what always got me with those primary stunts where candidates would fill coffee and serve pancakes: they can’t pour a decent cup of joe. Oh, but we’re supposed to be enamoured with them. We’re not supposed to point out that they forgot to fill the damn cup…
That would be annoying.
As a Food Service Professional, I feel I must point out the table is equipped with a “serve yourself” style carafe (every lazy server’s favorite tool). Hmm, I wonder if this is one of those “politicians will never fill your cup, you must fill it yourself!” metaphors.
I wasn’t talking about this particular picture, PM. I can see the carafe; set it down and back away from it.
I was referencing the stints in the greasy spoons, where the John Edwardses and the Mit Romneys act like they’re hot shit for trying to flip flapjacks and carry around the coffee pot.
I don’t expect politicians to do for me what I am capable of doing myself; if they are trying to prove to me they can relate to me on some level, then I want them to do a competent job at it. Draw your own analogies.
I wasn’t slagging your comment either… just acting geeky…
I wasn’t referring to this picture specifically, PM. (longer post eaten by PK filter)
so, your choices are some fresh chocolate chip with stale vanilla on the side, or stale vanilla with some fresh baked alaska? would you prefer baked shortcake instead?
I actually LOL’d at this, hehe. Thank you!
Very clever.
Cute comment, J. I like it!
LOL.
Vote for me??? I thought you said refill you tea. Sorry dear, my hearing aid is on the fritz again.
He’d be useless without a teleprompter.
And McBush would be useless without Karl Rove.
Relevance. Your post has none.
Does his ever? I listen and talk to a lot of republicans, and I respect them and even agree with them. But so far in the 4+ months Ive been reading these boards, I have yet to see ONE thing Evil Pundit has said that has relevance, backing, or that I can even agree with..
You must look deeper, Grasshopper. Neither your agreement nor your understanding are required for what the Pundit says to be true.
But they have menus.
I guess Obama would have a little time to hang out… seeing as his opponent is trying to puss out of the debate on Friday! You can run Johnny Boy, but you can’t hide!
I need a nap.
That’s cuz you’re SOOOO old! UGH!!!!
*masturbates*
Don’t make me waterboard you, sonny.
Do not eat the pork chops, Infidel!!!
and you need to buy these other 5 families lunches too!! pony up!
No, you’re all mixed up. You mean the GOP-run Administration that is falling all over itself trying to generate the largest corporate welfare deal, EVER! After taking over a strong well run economy in 2000, the GOP and the Bush administration has driven our country into the ground, diverting wealth away from ordinary Americans to line the pockets of their friends and the GOP aligned CEOs.
You’re forgetting the DNC aligned CEOs who are also making a killing. To the other part of your post, I haven’t seen very many true conservatives who actually think Bush is doing the right thing. Most of us think he’s being a freaking dumbass who is bowing to the (other) party(’s) pressure. I wish he would claim lame duck status and just stop the bail out.
Gotta disagree with you on one point here- it’s the DLC that is causing the problems in the Democratic party, not the DNC as a whole. If we could kick those corporate loving jerks out of our party we might actually get somewhere.
Dems don’t figure in the issue, it is the GOP that CLAIMS all rights to morality, FREE market and everything conservative. Its funny how back in 2000, Pres Bush was the darling of all conservatives, who gave him free reign for six years, now, all of a suddent he is not a “TRUE” conservative. The bottom line…Conservatives are so F#$%ed up they don’t know what to do.
I haven’t agreed with GW for at least 6 years. He was just a better choice at the time than Kerry. A lot of conservatives are pretty pissed at Bush right now.
Like I said, conservatives gave him a free ride. I am not directly challenging your personal statement, but the vast majority of conservatives loved him in 2000 and again in 2004. There was no such thing as the better choice, it was “Stay the Course” don’t “Cut and Run” all the way. Self-professed conservatives bought the Bush/Cheney rheoric and the Swift Boat lies hook, line and sinker, just like you’re buying into McCain/Palin now.
True conservatives think the bailout is bullshit. True progressives think the bailout is bullshit. Funny that there’s so much pressure to sign with no questions asked…
A first: I agree with you completely and without reservation. Who’d a thunk it?
Also, that ‘pressure to sign’ reminds of nothing so much as the stink that was raised when the gummint to push through the immigration ‘reform’ bill a coupla years back. I have NEVER in my life seen conservatives demonstrate in large groups (other than right-to-life meetings), nor have I ever seen them form spontaneous rallies. They did both here in Atlanta.
I see a lot of agreement here. If We Da Peeps can make OUR bipartisan voice heard, I think that would send a unique message (read: shock therapy) to our so-called representatives.
Okay–question open to everyone. How do you think we should do it?And *quickly*.
You are talking fiscal conservatives, but they make up a small portion of the GOP which is currently dominated by the social conservatives who are being used by the big money boys who maximize government contracts and monetary policy to their benefit despite the harm to the nation.
Interesting report, what he says sounds good but is out of context with the overall discussion. If the fix is so obvious, why aren’t more experts discussing it?
Ever heard the phrase “Follow the money?” The ‘experts’ aren’t talking about it, possibly because they haven’t thought of it, but almost certainly because there’s no money in it for them and their buds. Please note: I call myself a conservative–and am–but I am a lower-case libertarian, not a Republican. Ramsey’s solution would allow self correction with about 10% of the money Big Gov’s solution would require, and nor would it allow BG to get its gummy fingers into our pockets.
Read thru Ramsey’s piece again. I’m writing my reps; no matter which side of the fence you’re on, if you think this particular bailout is irresponsible, as I do, and that Dave’s solution is better, write yours and say so. Srsly.
What a douchebag you are !
Intelligent debating, FTW!
No, wait–
Ah but don’t forget the important thing– the oval office is free of stains. Now we can rest easy and safe at night!
I never trusted Socks the cat. Just too darn sneaky for me.
Not true…late at night, when everyone is asleep, VP Cheney sneaks around and pees in the corners to mark his territory. Pres Bush will have a tough time getting his damage deposit back.
LOL!
Black men scare me.
Make room for Islam!
Guess who’s coming for dinner.
Guess who’s coming for diner.
There, fixed that for you.
Coming for diner? Like the old aluminum-sided deals with the sawdust on the floor and the waitress in the coral colored uniform with white apron ruptured-artery red lipstick?
One “n” – a place to eat Best. Food. Ever!
Two “nn”s – a meal.
Mmm, while I would like to see a debate, I would rather see something get done with the economy. Granted I don’t know what John expects to do but I won’t begrudge him for wanting to come together with Obama and see if they can figure something out.
I was afraid that Obama would insist on debates instead of taking this chance to actually DO something. I am finding my hope wavering so I am going to ride this out and see which one wins.
Obama’s already stated that if the Senate needs him, he’ll be there, but until then it’s more important to demonstrate that the President often needs to do more than one thing at a time.
Besides, why wait until Friday night to try to do anything? Procrastinate much?
What makes me laugh about the whole thing is that he canceled his SNL appearance because of Ike…but now all of a sudden, a President “needs” to be able to multi-task. The thing is, this is something uber-important and the entire Senate needs to be there, even if he came back and suggested moving the location of the debate to Washington, that would make a LOT more sense. The SNL thing he could have done. “This isn’t a time to laugh.” What?! C’mon…in times of crisis, that’s when we need humor the most. He’s ridiculous. All this says to me is that he doesn’t have his priorities straight. He should help take care of this Financial Crisis first. Worry about the debate and campaigning later.
Oh, And while I’m at it, I’d also like to point out that the reason the banks are in trouble right now is because of an act that was repealed during the CLINTON administration. Allowed AIG to get into the business (that they shouldn’t have gotten into) and now they’re failing. Anyone surprised? I’m not.
So, eight years of Bush’s massive deregulations had *nothing* to do with it? It’s kind of like saying that the bank robbery never would have happened if the security guy hadn’t unlocked the front door.
Barack being on call isn’t good enough? It’s more important to have the two Senators spend *those* exact two hours working on something that by all means should have been focused on two weeks or even two months or two years ago? I’d be less suspicious of this business if McCain suggested flipping the debates: he and Obama can debate next Thursday, then how about having Biden and “Ready at the Drop of a Hat” Palin duke it out on Friday?
Respectfully, Kel, I disagree.
There is a difference between his appearance on Saturday Night live and his willingness to debate important issues in public on the spot to prove his capabilities and his platforms. I think comparing the two activities is inappropriate.
You can scale back without hiding, and yes a president DOES have to multitask. Heck look at what presidents in the past dealt with.
And actually wouldn’t it make logical sense, if they DID have to scale back, to let the VP candidates take over the campaign for them while they headed back to the senate chambers? After all, is not the VP supposed to aide the office and platform in their duties?
Insert rude comment about VP solo capabilities here.
After being the most absentee senator in the Senate, McCain decides that NOW his presence will make a difference? And he can’t begrudge two hours out of his senate time to face his opponent in open debate? Uh, no. FAIL. He’s running away with his tail between his legs, using the economic crisis as a convenient excuse for his cowardice.
Citation on the most absentee senator, please?
Ask and ’tis given, so long as PK doesn’t eat the link:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/votes/missed/
HuffPo (Biased, I know) summarizes here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/24/mccain-wants-a-time-out_n_128991.html
If PK would quit eating my posts….
Use the Hyper Text Transfer Protocol to access
projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/votes/missed/
The above link is pretty dry stuff. HuffPo summarizes here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/24/mccain-wants-a-time-out_n_128991.html
I know, I know. Bias and all that, but the referenced material backs up the claims. And it turns out that PK won’t eat your links if you just leave off the h, the t, the other t, the p, the colon, and the two slashes.
That’s a tiny bit misleading. I checked all the way back from the 102nd Congress up until now, and there have only been three years where McCain has been absent more than 5% of the time. The total average of his absent votes for all nine years is 13.67%. Obama, on the other hand, has an average of 23.8% missed votes in the two years he’s been there. The last year’s missed votes for both (64% for McCain and 45% for Obama) can be semi-explained by the last year’s campaign. I haven’t checked Biden yet, but he was absent more than McCain on the years I was paying attention.
P.S. The last year’s missed votes for McCain totally jacked up the average
Sorry, said years and meant terms of congress. Attention span FAIL!
He’s been in the US Senate for 4 years, not two. I don’t know why that keeps getting screwed up.
Hasn’t he served a grand total of 143 days in the Senate?
He was elected in 2004. The Congress doesn’t meet the whole year round.
Understood. I looked up his bio page from the site that n8 referenced. He took the post on Jan 3, 2005. So I’ll agree that he has 3 and a half years
The two years thing may be because congress DOESN’T meet year round. They’re probably rounding the numbers of actual days spent. Then again, 143 days is less than 6 months, so I don’t know.
I was there more than McCain! So what if I only voted “present”, I was still there!!
I think I agree with Obama on this one: this crisis will not benefit from having presidential politics added to it. Plus, I don’t need a president who can only do one thing at once. “Sorry, can’t be bothered to deal with that whole Georgia/Russia conflict, I have an economy problem here!”
HI! I’m Obama, I’ll be your Presidential Server tonight.
I’m going to start you out with Higher Taxes and a side of Recession.
Then your main course will be CHANGE, which is my code word for Socialism.
If you can eat all of that you might qualify for one of the many wealth distribution plans I have for desert.
Then you can eat all you want and some rich guy making over $35K/yr will pay for it.
Clearly we have different perspectives here. I would have called 35K lower middle class.
No- Clinton said if you make > $35,000 a year, you were rich !
citation?
Nope ! I talked the cop out of one !
And yet, that doesn’t answer the request.
I dont think it’s a matter of differing perspectives, I believe the phrase is “detached from reality.” His tax plan lowers taxes for everyone making less than 250K a year. Which Im guessing if you think 35K/yr is rich, you’re among the ones getting a tax break. The republicans this year have been playing the “Its
not true, but its not untruth either” game. They keep repeating “Obama wishes to raise taxes”, when the truth is he’s raising them for people who have more money than they know what to do with. The only problem is, for some reason, people in this country have an aversion to reading, looking into, and thinking for themselves.
I blame laziness… and the democrats… and the republicans… and basically I blame anyone who thinks that a two sided government is designed to actually accomplish something.
Nothing will ever be done and the hostilities will only get worse until we all realize we’re not Democrat, Republican, or Independent… we’re freakin’ human. So perhaps we can put all the BS aside and get down to the real business of making this country a truly free one, with liberty and justice for ALL. Not just “who the rich white guys deem necessary.”
The thing is, Obama keeps changing his tax policy. Really, I can’t keep up with it. However, the one plan he had, he was only raising it on 250K + BUT then he added in all these extra taxes here, and extra taxes there. And of course taxes corporations…and well, if corporations are taxed more heavily, guess who in the end gets to pay that anyway? Yup. That’d be us.
And you wanna tell that 250K+ is rich? Tell that to the people in So Cal that can barely afford to keep a house with the income they’re making.
Or even 80K. That’s a lot of money, right? Try 2 incomes with 80K, that’s a lot right? Not when you’re paying 40% in taxes. And I’m not exaggerating. And you have mortgages and car payments. And trying to save for your kids to go to college. Oh, and by the way…your kids don’t qualify for government loans…nice try though. Just pray they’re smart enough to get some scholarships. And thank goodness you were smart enough to start saving from the time they were born! Yup…try telling that family you want to raise their taxes, because their combined income makes them “rich.”
80K is reasonable. Upper middle class I would guess, but I don’t know the median US income. Almost everybody is going to feel that their income is barely enough to meet their needs, or even not enough, this is because spending increases as income increases.
People who feel that 250K is not enough to live in SoCal shouldn’t live in SoCal, or at least move somewhere in SoCal where it is cheaper. Outer suburbs of any city tend to be cheaper, so try that.
I think the median is in the $45K range?
Taking the yearly income all by itself is stupid, though. Making 80K in Podunk, Nebraska makes you a wealthy man; making 80K in Washington, DC makes you a borderline pauper. But people need to live close to where they work, at least to an extent, so saying “move away” isn’t going to help things.
I found some stats (click name).
The median wage in the US was (in 2003) $43,318
The median wage in DC was $43,215
The median wage in Nabraska was $41,984 (harder to find data on towns like Podunk)
Connecticut tops the list at 56K, Mississippi trails at 32K
.
80K is still upper middle class.
.
Every city has its poorer suburbs, try moving there.
Median *household* income in the US is around $48 K. Median *personal* income is a shade over $32 K. Think about that one-income family whose wage earner gets a $3,000 raise. Now he’s ‘wealthy’.
Note that the top 50% of wage earners in this country pay 97% of income taxes. Since those who earn more than $250 K comprise less than 0.5% of taxpayers, the crap about soaking the rich for ‘their fair share’ is revealed as the class-warfare (read: socialist) ploy that it is. Anyone who can do a little math (which lets out anyone with nothing more than a public-school education can see that hitting up fewer than 5% of taxpayers will have little effect on the revenues taken in. It just sounds good in front of blue-collar audiences.
Another thing that reveals it as a racial (NOT *racist*) ploy as well as classist is that Asians, male and female, earn more than other ethnic groups, including the Evil White Male.
Click my username for a Wiki on the numbers. fairtax.org, y’all!
When 5% of the taxpayers control over 80% of the wealth, it makes sense to tax them and not the majority who control a minority of the wealth. Fair tax proposals aren’t The rich see far more of the benefit from our tax dollars, in the form of corporate socialism and protection of their assets. They should pay extra.
… because regardless of the exact line between disgustingly rich and sickeningly rich, the loaf of bread costs the same amount of money for them as for a low-income family, as for a middle class family.
I don’t see how corporate anything amounts to socialism. Your ‘plan’, which is undiluted Marxist cant, is nothing but.
I’d like to know the rest of your sentence, “Fair tax proposals aren’t . . . “You really should check it out at fairtax.org, as it addresses the needs of lower-income wage earners.
Seth, you are confusing two issues. Never mind the wealth supposedly controlled by the wealthy. All we–and Obama, and McCain–are talking about is *income tax*. Raising *income taxes* on the wealthy, however you describe them, WILL NOT produce a significant increase in tax revenues. Quite the opposite.
It has been demonstrated under Bush–and Reagan–and JFK! fer crissakes, that lowering *income* tax rates *increases* investment and consumption, and that overall tax revenues go UP. Cutting said rates under Reagan by almost half more than doubled tax revenues. Youse can look it up.
I agree. Over the past decade(s) I have seen things go from a discussion of what the best course of action is, with disagreements, to the whole, “if you don’t agree with my course of action you are for *insert terrible calamity here*” and anyone who has a different plan is, of course, using some malicious goal or false science.
There is no bipartisan issue work being accomplished on any issue, its all platforms and denegrations of outside opinions.
Of course, I started independent and voted either way. I currently feel that one party is consistently worse about our way or evil attitudes and offering far more limited options in life.
Now, what are the functional differences in definition between a democracy and a republic, hmmm??
I disagree with you on every point, but at least you made it with creativity and style.
Oh, and it’s those who make over $250,000 he wants to raise taxes on, thank you.
The diffence between Liberals and conservatives shown clearly here. Liberals want to pull everyone down to their level instead of working hard for what they have.
Liberals want to work hard to climb the ladder. Conservatives want to kick out the rungs, then ask those below them to catch the rich if they fall.
To the liberal, there should be no ladder.
To the communism or socialist there should be no ladder. You are looking too far left.
Sorry. I’m extremely tired tonight, and my filter is a little loose
I’ll stay a little more left-center as opposed to left-left. I still consider Obama to be far enough to the left to think that there is no ladder, Neo. 
J.F.C…
Look people, regardless of what the Republican Talking Point says, Obama is nowhere near Far Left, nor Marxism, nor socialism. He’s Center-Left.
Compare the actions/plans/sentiments of Obama to a genuine Far-Left social democrat (both lowercase) like Bernie Sanders.
Obama knows there’s a ladder; Bernie wants to kick it over.
LOL on the ladder being kicked over
Didn’t the New York Times or Time Magazine list Barry as the most liberal senator, even more so than Ted Kenedy? I’m just sayin’…
“From NBC’s Mark Murray
National Journal magazine is reporting that Obama was the most liberal senator of 2007, according to the vote ratings it does every year for members of Congress. Clinton, meanwhile, ranks as the 16th most-liberal senator. ”
Now, I will freely admit that this is biased in that for these rankings Obama missed most of the votes for that year. He voted liberal 65 out of 66 votes for the times he voted. He’s rated at a 16 and a 10 in 2005 and 2006, respectively, with his votes getting more liberal as the years progressed. Too bad he doesn’t have a long record in the Senate, we might be able to extrapolate something from the data. However, with what little we have to go on, he still sits as the most liberal
He’s not as liberal as you think. He backed off on he opposition to FISA which pissed off a lot of people. Not only that, but a lot of people in Chicago and Illinois are not happy with him because he’s done nothing for the state and what he has done hasn’t been ‘liberal’ enough. It’s all perspective.
Well, perspective, hearsay, and rumormongering.
You’re a lawyer, aren’t you ?
“hearsay”!!!
No: I’m over the age of 16 and happen to live in a “battleground” state.If only I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard someone call Obama a Marxistwho cannot defend his point beyond “well I heard…” or “because he is”, I could take m wife out on a very nice night on the town.
Christine,
Obie is all that progressive and more. He ‘backed off’ on FISA because when you see the real national security picture, you know that it is a necessity. Most of the rest of the Dems approved it, too, for the same reason.
Congrats to the folks in Chitown and Illinois for being perceptive enough to know that his vaunted ‘experience’ stems from getting his name put on bills that other Illinois legislators created, and that all in the last year of his term there. It’s mostly smoke and mirrors with the lot of them, we all agree on that, but in his case it is rather more . . . accentuated.
Right. He’s only the most liberal member of the Senate, right?
No. He’s not. Not by a long shot.
Some comment made the Left-Wing Obama-Supporting NYT means squat in terms of policy.
Lose the buzzwords and check the aforementioned Sanders’ policies: that’s a true Liberal.
Or we could always try a radical notion that eddie and I have been kicking around and just drop the labels as insults and try to discuss it out without attacks.
Not aimed at you, just an overall observation as I watch these go down. I see conservative and liberal being tossed like epitaphs.
I don’t see Liberal as a bad thing: I embrace the term, even as EP trieds to label me poorly for it.
My objection is the label that Obama is the Most Liberal. He’s not. It would be like stating that lemon juice is the most acidic substance out there. The error is about the qualitative measure of acidity being good or bad, but the quantitative error about the extremity of the level of acid.
* “The error is not about the qualitative measure…”
Look at the tax laws again.
A person earning $250,001 will still earn more (after tax) than someone on $249,999, all other things being equal (ie no other tax concessions).
I certainly hope so !
Obvious maths aside, my point is, no matter how high one group is taxed, people who have a higher gross income will have a higher net income too. That’s how progressive taxing works.
He’s still talking, I’m still thirsty, I see a problem.
Of the many Lols that used this photo, this is the best!
Did anyone else kind of “hear” the guy from the commercial saying the caption?
Oh yeah baby. Can’t believe I still remember that after all these years!
Finally a job he may be qualified for!
Barely.
He’d be fired within a month.
Nah – he’d sue, claiming discrimination.
LOL!! They couldn’t fire me!
Ooops, didn’t mean to bust into the middle of your authoritarian right wing nut job circle jerk here. I’m going… someplace less sticky now. Carry on.
hehe
I wonder if he got a reasonable tip?
THAT is a neat photo!
Here’s a tip for the O-man: drop out now, before you embarrass yourself. Which is not to say that he will lose the election. What happens if he *wins* and his rank inexperience puts the nation at risk? Without being derogatory, I have serious concerns about a man who cannot complete a sentence without its being fed to him being responsible for the safety of 300 million people.
If you say, “He has Biden and other experienced advisors to assist,” you make my point for me. The purpose of advisors is to present a spectrum of information and opinions; how would O. choose among them? Even scarier, what if the counselors tell him what they think he wants to hear, or all speak with one voice? **Obama has zero experience making critical decisions of any size,** and decision making is, after all, the job of the President.
Obama as Pres = FAIL
There have been plenty of US presidents with similar levels of experience as Obama, some with even less.
Name two.
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln actually had a decent amount of experience under his belt, and I deemed Washington to have enough more than Obama that I chose not to include him.
I’ve given you a nice big list, because I know that you would dispute whomever I gave if there were only two. This way, you get to dispute as many as you can and you probably still won’t whittle it down to two.
.
Andrew Jackson
Zachary Taylor
Franklin Pierce
Ulysses S. Grant
Rutherford B. Hayes
Chester A. Arthur
Grover Cleveland
William McKinley
Theodore Roosevelt
Jimmy Carter
George W. Bush
.
I’ve only taken into account years in office, and number of offices here. The quality of each person’s time in office was not looked in to, and I considered governor, senator (state or national), and house of reps to be equal in experience, because giving preference to one over another is a difficult task. Dispute that if you want too.
Okay, good show. I see that I didn’t make myself clear, because there are criteria I had not thought of.
I do not consider time as a representative on any level to count as the sort of experience I had in mind. I don’t consider the abstract, intellectual sort of decision that a congressman or senator makes when considering a bill to be relevant to be running a superpower. What I had in mind would attain from business, military, or executive experience.
I also note that you only list two from the modern era. I think you will agree that the experience it took to run this nation more than a hundred years ago is different qualitatively and quantitatively than what is called for today. Abraham Lincoln could receive walk-in visitors at the White House (and did, which was how the repeating rifle was introduced into the Federal armory after the Secretary of Defense rejected it on the grounds that “soldiers would use too much ammunition”). My historical knowledge allows me to speak only to Grant, Roosevelt, Carter, and Dubya.
Grant was a failure at everything until he was thrust into command during a major conflict, at which he was brilliant. He was then promoted to his level of incompetence (the Peter Principle) and was a miserable, though highly popular, president. So his command experience didn’t help him.
Roosevelt was both a leader of men in combat, which requires instantaneous life-or-death decisions, and Governor of the State of New York. I believe that was then the most populous state. Don’t know much about him, but I believe he was regarded as fairly effective.
Carter graduated Georgia Tech, was commander of a nuclear submarine, which requires high technical competence, governor of Georgia, then President. His softness toward tyrants (which today verges on treason) led to the debacle in Tehran. When he left office, we had double-digit inflation, interest rates, and unemployment. *Taken in itself*, his previous experience would appear to have had little bearing on his performance as CIC. (I know there were other factors; we can discuss those later.) But I don’t think much of him as a President.
Naturally, you think the same of Dubya. Bush II graduated Yale (grades aside–do you know what your physician’s GPA was? He still has a medical license, hee), was pilot of an aircraft requiring consummate flying skill, a party functionary, governor of Texas, then President. Other than lowering taxes and providing for national security, although I voted for him twice, I disagree with almost everything else he has done. But no large public buildings have collapsed due to enemy action since 9/11.
McCain has most of the positive attributes of all those listed above, as well as age, which *most* cultures consider an asset. He is strong on defense. Since we are at war with a relentless, vicious enemy, I consider this of primary importance. If you don’t have a nation, nothing else matters.
Obama has *none* of these things. His so-called experience is a sham, his record as a ’successful legislator’ in Illinois owing to his being handed bills which others (Dems!) had written and his name being put on. He has not run a business. He has not been a leader of men. He has never had to make decisions which *directly* affected the lives of those for whom they were made. He is hazy about his past and his books have been shown to be full of inconsistencies, to be kind. He has a history of consorting with violent radicals; doesn’t even matter which way they lean, does it? If they were swastika-sporting skinheads, a stink would surely be made about it, but since he is black and they are leftists, it is discounted. Give him ten or twenty years to mature, then maybe. But as it stands, OBAMA IS NOT FIT TO BE A HEAD OF STATE.
I chose time as the indicator because I don’t have time to research dozens of politicians and the effects of their actions before and as president. If a person is elected to office once, it shows their ability to campaign and to sway the masses. If a person is elected back to the same office again, it indicates they were probably good as a politician.
If a person is elected to many different offices, it is an indication of their versatility.
Obama was re-elected to the Illinois Senate twice.
Didn’t a state a few years ago re-elect a dead guy?
He either must’ve been really good, or his opposition was really bad.
The man died in a plane crash on the campaign trail. When he won, his wife stpped in for him. After getting publicity like that, it became rather difficult to run a campaign against him.
A good post all in all, except Carter never commanded a nuclear submarine, nor did he ever serve on one. The only submarine he was on was the USS Barracuda, SSK-1 where he was XO, not CO. He was assigned to the AEC in their Naval Reactors Branch, but the first nuclear submarine, the Nautilus, had yet to be commissioned whhen he left the Navy as a Lieutenant.
But I wholeheartedly agree with your bottom line!
Wonder if he got a nice tip…..