Wingnuts get their asses kicked

[Listening]

If you define Obama as a success then your standards are rather low.

If you define the current administration as any thing but a miserable failure, then you should be sharing your drugs.

 

[Dragon]

I would not call Obama's administration a "success." The best I would give it is "not a disaster."

Regrettably, in view of the Republican alternatives, that's enough to get my vote next year.

 

[Trajan]

I would not call Obama's administration a "success." The best I would give it is "not a disaster."

Regrettably, in view of the Republican alternatives, that's enough to get my vote next year.

how old are you?

 

[Listening]

I would not call Obama's administration a "success." The best I would give it is "not a disaster."

Regrettably, in view of the Republican alternatives, that's enough to get my vote next year.

Stepping away from the partisan emotion for a minute, I would say the bigger disaster is the constant flow of disinformation that the public has to deal with. They don't trust anyone and I don't blame them.

President Obama can't do it by himself. And while I think he has certainly shown an major inept streak, he has people in congress on both sides who are just as bad.

The American people are to caught up on the idea that their problems and issues are not their own and that somehow electing a slick talker like BHO is going to make life easier.

 

[Trajan]

And under Reagan aour debt pretty much doubled, and we went from a creditor nation to a debtor one, yet the Republicans still think Reagan is the best thing since cliced bread.

the conversion to a debtor nation is a large part of why we are where we are now.

So, Reagan doubling our debt is bad.

Obama raising the debt at twice the rate Bush did is good.

Maybe you should just post nothing but "Obama can do no wrong". It would save you time.

to bad Clinton is not around now huh?

remembering clinton is not flattering to obama, but please do go on.

 

[Dragon]

I would not call Obama's administration a "success." The best I would give it is "not a disaster."

Regrettably, in view of the Republican alternatives, that's enough to get my vote next year.

how old are you?

About the same age as your parents.

By the way, "alea jacta est" is not a quote from Trajan.

 

[Trajan]

you know only you would take that graph seriously......seriously. my god dude, buy a brain, please.

 

[Listening]

you know only you would take that graph seriously......seriously. my god dude, buy a brain, please.

a brain that works !!!

 

[Listening]

bump

 

[bripat9643]

I would not call Obama's administration a "success." The best I would give it is "not a disaster."

Regrettably, in view of the Republican alternatives, that's enough to get my vote next year.

Of course not. You're a communist. Only a Soviet style police state would get your support.

 

[madasheck]

Man, those victories felt damn good.

 

[Listening]

I would not call Obama's administration a "success." The best I would give it is "not a disaster."

Regrettably, in view of the Republican alternatives, that's enough to get my vote next year.

Of course not. You're a communist. Only a Soviet style police state would get your support.

I am still laughing at this one.

It must be late....this was funny.

Great post.

It is also true.

 

[Oldstyle]

Man, those victories felt damn good.

What's amusing to me is that the "victories" you speak of are simply illustrative of the fact that Americans want benefits but aren't willing to pay for them.

If you don't believe me then place a bill on the ballot to increase taxes to PAY for the outrageous benefit packages of public sector workers and watch how quickly that gets voted down.

So what you have is an electorate that bought the whole collective bargaining for government employees is a good thing argument...right up to the point where they're told they have to pay for what results from that collective bargaining and then the electorate says WHOA...HOLD ON THERE! IT'S GOING TO COST ME WHAT? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND!!!

The American voter "will" finally figure this out. When they do then public sector unions will be getting their benefits cut. It would have already happened except the main stream media so muddled the issue voters thought that voting against collective bargaining for public sector employees was somehow "un-American".

 

[Dragon]

Of course not. You're a communist. Only a Soviet style police state would get your support.

LOL I'm just quoting this for the amusement value. It needs no reply.

 

[madasheck]

Man, those victories felt damn good.

What's amusing to me is that the "victories" you speak of are simply illustrative of the fact that Americans want benefits but aren't willing to pay for them.

If you don't believe me then place a bill on the ballot to increase taxes to PAY for the outrageous benefit packages of public sector workers and watch how quickly that gets voted down.

So what you have is an electorate that bought the whole collective bargaining for government employees is a good thing argument...right up to the point where they're told they have to pay for what results from that collective bargaining and then the electorate says WHOA...HOLD ON THERE! IT'S GOING TO COST ME WHAT? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND!!!

The American voter "will" finally figure this out. When they do then public sector unions will be getting their benefits cut. It would have already happened except the main stream media so muddled the issue voters thought that voting against collective bargaining for public sector employees was somehow "un-American".

Sorry, but tearing into collective bargaining doesn't solve any problems. And if you're giving the rich big tax breaks (you know, the folks that don't need them), then don't come crying about collective bargaining, which, on its own, costs nothing. Collective bargaining is just that ... bargaining.

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry, but tearing into collective bargaining doesn't solve any problems. And if you're giving the rich big tax breaks (you know, the folks that don't need them), then don't come crying about collective bargaining, which, on its own, costs nothing. Collective bargaining is just that ... bargaining.

That's like saying being an alcoholic doesn't cost anymore than the price of the booze. Sure, it doesn't cost anything if you don't get busted for drunk driving, if you don't have an accident, if you don't kill or maim anyone and if you don't get cirrhosis of the liver.

 

[madasheck]

Sorry, but tearing into collective bargaining doesn't solve any problems. And if you're giving the rich big tax breaks (you know, the folks that don't need them), then don't come crying about collective bargaining, which, on its own, costs nothing. Collective bargaining is just that ... bargaining.

That's like saying being an alcoholic doesn't cost anymore than the price of the booze. Sure, it doesn't cost anything if you don't get busted for drunk driving, if you don't have an accident, if you don't kill or maim anyone and if you don't get cirrhosis of the liver.

Ridiculous comparison. Collective bargaining can be a benefit to both sides -- and in the long run, DOES benefit both sides because it can be an instrument of labor peace. Look at what's happened in Wisconsin and Ohio if you need any proof of that.

Bargaining doesn't come with an admission price. The jackasses on Fox News cause more damage than collective bargaining.

 

[Warrior102]

Man, those victories felt damn good.

What's amusing to me is that the "victories" you speak of are simply illustrative of the fact that Americans want benefits but aren't willing to pay for them.

If you don't believe me then place a bill on the ballot to increase taxes to PAY for the outrageous benefit packages of public sector workers and watch how quickly that gets voted down.

So what you have is an electorate that bought the whole collective bargaining for government employees is a good thing argument...right up to the point where they're told they have to pay for what results from that collective bargaining and then the electorate says WHOA...HOLD ON THERE! IT'S GOING TO COST ME WHAT? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND!!!

The American voter "will" finally figure this out. When they do then public sector unions will be getting their benefits cut. It would have already happened except the main stream media so muddled the issue voters thought that voting against collective bargaining for public sector employees was somehow "un-American".

Sorry, but tearing into collective bargaining doesn't solve any problems. And if you're giving the rich big tax breaks (you know, the folks that don't need them), then don't come crying about collective bargaining, which, on its own, costs nothing. Collective bargaining is just that ... bargaining.

You do know who pays the most taxes in the US, right dumbfuck? Need a DOT.GOV link?

 

[Steelplate]

What's amusing to me is that the "victories" you speak of are simply illustrative of the fact that Americans want benefits but aren't willing to pay for them.

If you don't believe me then place a bill on the ballot to increase taxes to PAY for the outrageous benefit packages of public sector workers and watch how quickly that gets voted down.

So what you have is an electorate that bought the whole collective bargaining for government employees is a good thing argument...right up to the point where they're told they have to pay for what results from that collective bargaining and then the electorate says WHOA...HOLD ON THERE! IT'S GOING TO COST ME WHAT? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND!!!

The American voter "will" finally figure this out. When they do then public sector unions will be getting their benefits cut. It would have already happened except the main stream media so muddled the issue voters thought that voting against collective bargaining for public sector employees was somehow "un-American".

Sorry, but tearing into collective bargaining doesn't solve any problems. And if you're giving the rich big tax breaks (you know, the folks that don't need them), then don't come crying about collective bargaining, which, on its own, costs nothing. Collective bargaining is just that ... bargaining.

You do know who pays the most taxes in the US, right dumbfuck? Need a DOT.GOV link?

Of course they pay the most taxes.... they make the most money. Even if it was a flat rate, they'd still pay the most taxes... so I guess next you'll be saying that's not fair so we'll go to a regressive tax system so that Poor people pay the most and rich people pay the least in %, so that all people will pay the same in taxes....after all, fair's fair.

 

[madasheck]

Sorry, but tearing into collective bargaining doesn't solve any problems. And if you're giving the rich big tax breaks (you know, the folks that don't need them), then don't come crying about collective bargaining, which, on its own, costs nothing. Collective bargaining is just that ... bargaining.

You do know who pays the most taxes in the US, right dumbfuck? Need a DOT.GOV link?

Of course they pay the most taxes.... they make the most money. Even if it was a flat rate, they'd still pay the most taxes... so I guess next you'll be saying that's not fair so we'll go to a regressive tax system so that Poor people pay the most and rich people pay the least in %, so that all people will pay the same in taxes....after all, fair's fair.

Don't be too logical now. The Party of the Dark Side gets confused easily.