Well, that site makes some good points as well. Obama has proven to be far too much of a pragmatic diplomat that is too eager to compromise away the strongest elements of reform early on in a futile attempt to appease the establishment and his opponents.
This should not diminish the accomplishments he has managed to get done however in the face of the a record breaking obstruction and negativity campaign by the right. All in all, things are slowly starting to turn around, even though I get impatient with the pace of reform as well, and wish he would take bolder stands.
Technically congress is the entity that is supposed to be "doing" things (i.e. creating laws). The president's job is to be in charge of the military, foreign relations, and the execution of the laws that congress creates. Technically he can only help or hinder existing congressional bills, by signing them into law or vetoing them.
We should really keep this in mind when evaluating the performance of both presidents and congressi (congresses sounds weird).
You have a strange definition of "doing". So, is it the brain or the body that "does" stuff? Congress is like the brain, the executive branch is like the body. Sorta. Well, Congress is like the mother, and the federal government is like the child that must do what his mother tells him with the president being the brain and .... The courts is the father who tells the mother and the child when they screw up. Or maybe I have the mother and father reversed. You know, this analogy sucks.
The point is the executive branch, or government, is the branch that actually does stuff. Congress passes laws saying what the government should be doing, the court makes sure the congress and the government are following the laws, including the constitution, and the president is the head of government.
The three branches of government, including congress and the courts, is an oft-repeated misnomer.
Technically ALL branches are doing stuff, but the things that people generally attribute to the president like starting wars, fixing healthcare, fixing the economy, raising/lowering taxes, bailing out companies, etc, are all related the passing laws which is actually congress's responsibility.
In a sense people actually know this when they hear and say things like "Congress is stopping the president's plan", but they just don't realize that they should actually be looking at it as the president stopping congress's plans with his veto power (if you want to describe the crazy s**t they come up with as a plan).
Well, it is an important distinction. Look at the TARP - something like half the money was never "spent" (leant). Congress authorized $700 billion but the federal government didn't spend anything near that.
And let's not forget about Andrew Jackson's famous words, "They have made their decision, now let them enforce it" (talking about the Supreme Court, just before doing the opposite of what they ordered).
Bush did a lot of really terrible things. He should probably be in prison right now.
The democrats (and republicans) in congress that used their power to allow Bush do all these really terrible things are complicit.
Most of the terrible things Bush did would not have been possible without laws passed from congress. Some, however, originated completely from the executive branch.
Interesting that some people will defend Obama because Congress is the entity that is "in charge", and yet Bush still gets blamed for the economy even though Congress was overwhelmingly Democratic at the time...
Both parties suck. Obama sucks. Bush sucks. Pelosi and Reid suck. Boehner and McConnell suck as well.
Interesting you chastise the Democratic congress that was in power for only the last 2 of Bush's 8 years & completely overlook what was done in tandem by the Republican congress & executive branch for the first 6. Our country didn't magically start turning to s**t in '06 when the Democrats took control.
That's reasonable and all, but when the linked article looks at jobs created "by Obama" being greater than all of those created "by Bush" - what do you expect since Obama has been in office for 2 years and Bush was in it for 8 with the worst recession since the great depression in his last two.
Most people on Digg want to you believe the president is directly in charge of economic performance when this simply isn't true. If we can blame Bush for the recession then the can blame Obama for a lack of a recovery. Both arguments would be baseless.
Websites like the one in the link are standard from both side of the political spectrum - they cherry pick examples and present them in a fashion that makes their side look good.
The first bullet point "Created more private sector jobs in 2010 than during entire Bush years" is certainly cherry picked because they look at private sector jobs, not private and public. Also, stating it that way leaves out the fact that the Bush years had the second longest period of job creation in the history of the US - the numbers are skewed by the recession which by the way will wind up skewing Obama's numbers when everything is said and done with. The author of the website claims he could do a better job "in his sleep" ... not likely.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
And what did Bush and the republican congress do so terrible with our economy through 2006. It was some of the greatest growth years ever other than the 9 months after 9/11.
Things started to go downhill not long after Pelosi took over...
I would like to point out that I was not defending Obama nor Bush. I am merely pointing out as a non-partisan (someone who did not vote for Bush, Gore, Kerry, Obama, nor McCain), that Congress is the entity largely responsible for the laws that get passed.
Congress is capable of passing laws without the help of the president, but the opposite is not true.
Regulations get passed without the help of Congress. Granted, Congress gives the executive branch the authority to pass regulations, but it's pretty much hands off from that point on.
So exactly how is the opposite not true? Because regulations = laws, and the administration pretty well sets its own course from there on out, pending potential smackdowns by the judicial branch.
The regulations that the executive branch creates are either restricted by the US constitution or within the scope of executing the laws that congress creates.
Congress holds the trump card in that they can create new laws which can change or restrict the scope of the regulations that the executive branch makes.
These regulations are supposed to be aligned with the spirit of the US constitution or laws that congress creates, and the judicial branch is in charge of determining that.
More often than not it is the laws themselves that regular people are praising or criticizing, and rarely the specific regulations that guide enforcement.
If you have a problem with the way a particular federal law is enforced, but you have no issue with the law itself, then you should complain about the president rather than congress. I can't even remember a controversial issue that had to do with the way a federal law was specifically enforced rather than the law itself (although I am pretty sure it must happen occasionally).
That is great tsuruchubrian, but when a candidate campaigns on 'Change and Hope' he is taking the responsibilities of change on to himself. If the change does not happen, or it is negative, then he needs to be held accountable. If he doesn't want to take credit for the failures, he shouldn't get credit for the successes (or successi if that works better for you).
That being said, he had a monumental task in front of him, and it is unlikely that he or anyone else could affectively turn the ship in 2 years. His strength is in getting people to believe his message, and become inspired. Unfortunately, the people that fall for that don't have influence over the things that can actually boost the economy.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to criticize every president for the promises the make. Not just for failing to keep their promises, but also because they should have known they are not even supposed to be responsible for many of the changes they claim to they want to make.
"We" (the royal we) should also blame ourselves for not understanding the way our government works, and allowing ourselves to be lead to believe that the president could be capable of making all these changes himself.
That said, I think any sort of criticism for the actual laws that are getting passed or not getting passed should be mostly directed towards congress. The president can get part of the blame as well for vetoing or not vetoing certain bills.
If the mayor of San Diego claimed to be able to fix ALL the nation's problems from his mayoral position, should we place all the blame on him because he failed? No, we just call him an idiot, and place the blame where it really belongs. We can also call ourselves idiots if we actually believed him.
The Congress is responsible for writing and passing bills, the President makes them into laws (yes, there are vetoed bills that can be passed with a two thirds vote).
To draw the line at the black and white responsibilities, and ignore the influence that the President wields, is short sighted.
As for your mayor analogy, I would blame the mayor for being a moron, and the blind followers for being gullible.
Last I checked, he worked his ass off for 2 years for this job. This wasn't 'thrust on to him' The economy was crap for more than 2 months before election day and he never once changed is 'change and hope' message so he needs to be accountable for that promise and he's failed miserably at it. Typical lying politican
I know that. I was only commenting that it sounds more correct to me because of the similarity to that latin rule. Obviously it's not really applicable.
Keith Olberman last night: "it has been 7 days since the new house took office.. mr. boehner, where are the jobs?" Hahaah yea Keith! We're glad you're back! (bury me, you hateful loser!)
Actually 'the execution of the laws that congress creates' would be the judicial branch. The executive branch ratifies laws that congress votes on. Just semantics.
That is the current congress. We have had 110 congresssesses in our nation's history. The next congress will be the 112th congress. The current United States congress at any given time is often simply called "Congress". This is analogous to how there have been 44 different US presidents, even though there is only 1 person referred to as "the president" at any given time.
There recently was an article in the St. Petersburg , Fl. Times. The Business Section asked readers for ideas on: "How Would You Fix the Economy?" I think this guy nailed it!
Dear Mr. President,
Please find below my suggestion for fixing America 's economy. Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.
You can call it the "Patriotic Retirement Plan":
There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:
1) They MUST retire. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.
2) They MUST buy a new AMERICAN Car. Forty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed.
3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - Housing Crisis fixed.
It can't get any easier than that!!
P.S. If more money is needed, have all members in Congress pay their taxes...
Mr. President, while you're at it, make Congress retire on Social Security and Medicare. I'll bet both programs would be fixed pronto!
If you think this would work, please forward to everyone you know.
Nothing gets done anywhere in any branch of the government without money. All money (authorization) for everything the executive branch does comes from the congress. The president creates a suggested budget for the executive branch, but it's AUTHORIZED by congress, while the president has final signature - he/she has no ability to affect the detail of the budget - they can only sign or veto. The president can suggest a war - but congress must approve it. The president can suggest tax increases/decreases, but congress must approve it. The president can suggest spending billions to wiretap every phone call in/out of America, but congress must approve it.
Because the stuff that is listed as down by this site are mostly negative actions, or atleast actions that are not a positive for our nation. Other statements like the one on the homepage are just completely inaccurate.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
For crying out loud Quirk. You complain when Novy cries about dupes, now you want to cry about it. Geez let it go, so digg has dupes, big f**king deal. It has been like that for years. And what is it with your weird obsession with Novy? It's one thing to follow him on digg, but you carry it on from other social sites.
And FYI to you and bdbr, I didn't mean that article was your submission. I was just saying whatever you submit in general.
jdenz - oh, the hypocrisy....Novy's the one who is obsessed. He's the one who has authored articles showing that HE is following conservatives all over the internet.
Also, YOU seem to be following me all over Digg. Every comment...there you are in response. Project much?
You mean the right-wing Obama haters are commenting without looking at the site. Boo f**king hooo. But just more proof that the far-right doesn't like to read.
LOL, I think the comment was referring to Obama supporters thinking the site was slamming Obama instead of reading it and figuring out it praised him. Ironic.
it goes without saying that anything dug to the front page of Diggs is either attacking GOPs, creationists, or both in the case of Sarah Palin... or, casting positive light on Obama, Conan, and the Oatmeal.
It mocks the naysayers and the people who do not want to believe that President Obama is the best President that has ever happened to this country, and at a time when it needed him most. People from other countries are envious in what we have for a leader. Whats not good now.. is the regardless of politics we are a house divided and even the strongest leader on earth is going to have a trouble in a situation like this. Furthermore, our media has been corrupted for quite some time by the wealthy elite who are doing their damnest to defeat the voting power of everyone else. It is getting progressively worse and more apparent as time goes on...
This midterm election was nothing more than people either voting against or acting passively against their own interests.
Not really. Especially not getting a latina in court or whatever one the fact was.
I don't care if there's a latina in court. The only reason it's news is because she's not white. And that's racist. I'm not racist, therefore, I don't care.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Should it? Maybe he's actually a healthy kid and doesn't want the country to go broke and would rather have that money towards his education.
It's called prioritization. Liberals do not know what prioritization is. They think health care is more important than getting the economy on solid ground. Hence they were voted out in droves.
Not all of us sick, hacking, cancer ridden folk who require expensice health care.
@socketassault...no, it's a milestone, that's why it's news. maybe if you weren't white you would understand, but your comment makes it very clear that you've never been the target of racial discrimination (and i don't mean "oh, i hate affirmative action" discrimination, i mean like because your skin is a different color you score 30% lower on a test kind of discrimination)
"i mean like because your skin is a different color you score 30% lower on a test kind of discrimination"
wtf does this have to do with a latina in court? I don't give one s**t who's in court, who's in my government, or hell, who my president is.
As long as they're doing their job, I. don't. care.
Bringing attention to it because someone who's a race other that white did something is racist.
"no, it's a milestone" A milestone for who exactly? Latinos? Good for them. I don't know why their whole race somehow benefits because one of "their people" got into court.
If some white guy gets elected as president of a country in Africa. I wouldn't give a s**t. It's not a milestone for me. It's an achievement for him because he got that far. Good for him.
I'm not going to celebrate it as some amazing milestone for the entire white race, because that would be racist.
As long as he was doing his job in africa, and she's doing her job in court, I don't care what they look like. Hell, even if they weren't doing their job, I wouldn't care what they looked like. I'd fire them both.
wait... aren't you the guy in the party that wants to get rid of the department of education?
isn't your party mantra that : the government didn't create jobs, only rich people you know the ones that have seen their income go up during this recession... so where are all the jobs?
really dave... what republicans seem to forget is the Preamble of the Constitution says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
see that part about promoting the general welfare, and that part about establishing justice, and securing liberty...
If your f**king retarded party had written it it would be:
We the People of the United States, provide for the common defence, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
because it seems that republicans only want to spend money on a useless standing army... to the tune of $685 billion... after throwing 3 trillion dollars down a hole on a war that was never necessary...and f**k those old and poor people
Socket...I don't think you understand the liberal mantra....you're too stupid to understand this website and therefore you are not one of them: The enlightened elite.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Hey look bro. I'm 17. Until Obama lowers the cost of college and decreases taxes so I can pay off loans and crap when I'm out. He hasn't really done much for me.
yeah, you're 17 which now means that when you do go to college you will be covered under your parents insurance until you are 26... which means if you wind up in an accident or sick while you're in college, than you'll actually be covered... and not f**ked for not having insurance while you're a full time student... which means Obama has actually done something that will benefit YOU directly.
happy?
laugh all you want about the lack of Democrats... you're the f**king idiot who will be getting a lower minimum wage if you do work while you're in college
and dividg11... is a f**ktard... a lieing right-wing f**ktard
It's spelled "lying". Meanwhile your parent's premiums rise at least 10-13% and if your parents can not afford or do not have health insurance, they will both be fined $695 per person per year until they buy it.
Oh, but the liberal elitist above me failed to tell you that. I wonder why that might be?
Would you rather your parents have more money in their pocket to support you in college? Or should they pay higher premiums and fines for health insurance?
And I don't know your situation like the liberal supposedly intimately does, but if you are a healthy 17 yr old, like I was...I think the last thing on your mind from 17 through 26 years old was health care coverage. Education was my top priority at your age. Not blood thinning drugs and angioplasty. But hey....that's just me. Let the liberal dictate what you want and need. That's what they do best.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I haven't looked into the details of that healthcare thing. But, you're acting as though I just got 8 years of free coverage, if the previous coverage was until 18 years of age.
There's no way that can happen without an increase in cost. Absolutely. no. way.
That said, from what I understand, health insurance is a private business thing. not government. So I don't understand why the government is making decisions for the private companies.
oh, so you're saying if you're in an accident you'd rather just pay the outrageous bills right out of pocket huh? or perhaps bankrupt your family? that would be better? or did you not realize that over 50% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills?
The point is, you have 8 years of coverage, that you wouldn't have had before. And your family is more financially secure for it.
government has always made decisions for private companies...it's one of the reasons we have a government... to keep them from dumping coal sludge in drinking water, paying slave wages, (see Pullman Strike if you need to know exactly how bad a corporation can get if not kept in check) also take a look at civil rights legislation that would not allow companies to descriminate about who they serve and who they hire...
but hey, if you think companies will just do the right thing, I'll just assume you don't know s**t about US history...
and david, in real life adult world $695 a year isn't s**t...
hey, aren't you supposed to be the guy who supports the party of personal responsibility? well, carrying health insurance IS the responsiblie thing... I'm sure your head just imploded from the sudden shock of bulls**t escaping your brain....
Where would I have an accident? I'm a nerd who sits at his computer all day, plays TF2, and goes to a community college every other day. I don't even excercise.
I think people should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding health insurance. And again, you present the 8 years of coverage as free. Those eight years of coverage are 8 years the insurance companies would normally have gained a new customer. Now they're losing those eight years from the 19 year old, and they're going to have to make up for that lost profit. Where do they do that? They add it onto the existing plan. What if I graduate from college in 2011 at 21? I get job, get my own healthcare etc.
Do my parents still have to pay that extra amount to pay for the coverage of the now, nonexistant kid?
Furthermores is the burden from the lost profit distributed to me also, a kidless, young adult?
Admittedly, I really don't know anything about healthcare. I'm jsut basing my arguments off of things I'm assuming from my little pool of knowledge.
ALSO. " to keep them from dumping coal sludge in drinking water, paying slave wages"
There's a difference between regulation and making decision for private companies.
Dumping coal sludge in drinking water would be a regulation issue, as in "Dude, you can't dump that in the water."
But telling companies what they have to sell to people? And for how long? That seems like a business decision. I don't understand why the government is making those.
One final point. Either you've never taken an english class in your life, or it was too long ago for you to remember. But personal insults are the worst way to argue your case. For example, "I'll just assume you don't know s**t about US history... " and " I'm sure your head just imploded from the sudden shock of bulls**t escaping your brain...."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Actually my minor was in history. Took AP American and AP European history in high school which translated to beaucoup credits in college with my 4's. Sorry...you're not dealing with a retard in that area...awwww.....poor thing..you chose the wrong subject to debate.
I'm not saying the government doesn't need a role in regulation. But child labor for 18 hours in a sweatshop in the 1920's is just a wee slightly different issue than requiring every employer to pay for your health care.
I could even compromise for what I actually had during college...catastrophic health care coverage. A broken bone is not going to bankrupt you. Antibiotics for something is not going to bankrupt you. And $695 per person per year in each household may not be s**t to you, but it is a huge tax on people who do not wish to be covered.
To a college student, you elitist...it's a lot of damn money if their parents don't have coverage they can go under. But you don't think about those situations...do you?
Of course not. You know best, remember? Dictate to the masses what they need. And the masses will continue to vote your asses out of office. Guar-an-teed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I'm graduating high school with 51 college credits with math up to Differential Equations and English 102 completed. I'm not going to go spend hours researching health care just so I can have ALL the facts right. If some of the stuff was wrong, you can tell me. Instead you attacked my admittal of lack of knowledge.
At least I'm honest. Most likely you'd just start pulling facts out of nowhere.
I'm sorry, I know you will take this the wrong way. But at 17 you really are too young to understand much of the hardship that those older than you face daily. I'm not saying that you have to have lived 30+ years or anything. It's just this attitude as if nothing the Pres and Dems has affected you directly or even indirectly is either your too young to understand or that you really don't understand.
I don't want to have to pay a crapload of money for college. I don't want to come out of college into a crapload of taxes. And I don't want to spend half my money paying off some huge debt that wasn't my fault in anyway whatsoever.
I don't understand why these bailouts are handed out. I don't understand why I will be paying for some lazy ass who couldn't even pull off B's in high school and land a job at a pizza place to pay his bills. I don't understand why politicians are making decisions for me. I don't understand why we have this huge government that we're spending huge amounts of money on that screws up as much stuff as it fixes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Understand this: Your ignorance is causing your shortsightedness.
I don't have kids and yet my taxes go to schools for kids like you, why should I have to pay taxes for you? I've never been in an accident and yet here I am paying more for insurance because people in your age group cause a higher proportion of accidents. I also don't like the fact that I have to pay more for goods and services because we have minimum wage laws in this country, I don't understand why businesses can't pay kids like you what ever they want, you should be paying them for the skills you are learning and for the all the mistakes you will start off making. I also don't understand why kids like you complain about the price of college when colleges are a business and should be able to charge whatever the market is willing to pay, if you can't afford college then you probably don't deserve to go (blame your parents for not thinking ahead and saving money).
But what I really hate is having to "pay" for things because people like you cannot see the bigger picture and only care about themselves and vote with their gut because they are only 17 and can't be bothered to do research on a subject because they can't see how it might effect them.
First of all, I'm homeschooled. So my parents paid their taxes toward OTHER kids as well as for books for me. So you did nothing to support me.
I've never been in an accident either. Hell, I still have my permit, because my parents didn't let me get it until I was 17 and I put it off another half a year. If I was paying for insurance I wouldn't like paying extra either. I can't think of any alternatives right now.
I'm not sure on my opinion on minimum wage laws because I don't know enough about it and what the effects on product prices would be if it changed. For now, if you want cheap stuff, buy it from Hong Kong.
And about the college thing. I don't understand why the cost per credit hour at ASU is 10 times that of the community college I go to. That's an internal issue that I don't think has much to do with the government.
Basically I would support a minimum of restrictions just to keep the country running the way it should and let people make their own decisions regarding private matters.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
well Dave... My minor was US history... so you might want to bust those books out again,and take a good look at the Reconstrustion period, post civil war... also look up Laisez-faire and the Industrial revolution
than look up the Pullman Strike
than look up Homestead Strike
also feel free to look up the Standard Oil Trust
and Sherman Antitrust Act
for someone who claims to know history, you sure don't know s**t about it, considering history in this country has already proven WHY we have the laws we do
and Socket... you are exactly what I expect from a homeschooled kid... stupid as f**k about anything in the real world. Do you want to know why the cost per credit hour is 10 times the cost... that's what taxes in your area are subsidizing... so as to your bulls**t of, my parents payed taxes, but Ididn't get anything... you're flat f**king WRONG
and there is no more Hong Kong you twit, control of Hong Kong was turned back of to China. Please if you're going to try and sound like you now anything, at least know something
ever been on a date? have any real world friends? ever been to a school dance? thre is a real world that goes beyond that little sheltered s**t hole you call a life
@tmonsta1 I never said anything about community college funding. I would support community colleges charging more to make up for the money they lost from cutting support from taxes. I wouldn't want to pay for a community college's funding either. Expecially since most of the people that go there are unmotivated idiots.
And as far as I know Hong Kong still exists, but yes, has been absorbed back into china. My point was, all the ebay stores that obviously sell cheap chinese stuff ship out of Hong Kong. Me saying that you should buy from Hong Kong was a generalization for cheap chinese stuff from overseas.
But I'm glad you had to resort to over analysis to make yourself seem right.
did you look at the website? it was listing what Obama's done for the past 2 years one accomplishment at a time. if you don't understand why it would exist, it means one of two things: you keep up very well on what the president's done and don't understand why the site is necessary, or you have already determined that Obama's done nothing and the site is all lies and therefore unnecessary. one says you're ignorant of the political discourse in the US, the other says your intentionally ignorant of the polical realities of the US. either one is ignorance, and the only way you combat ignorance is with facts.
if you think none of that affects you, then you are just a moron
and there's a reason they're called accidents.... it's because no one expected them to happen.
What, you are somehow immune to being hit by a car walking down the street? Or having an allergic reaction in a restaurant? Or falling down the stairs on the way to the basement in your house?
@socketassault Props to you. I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning, but credit to you for being honest in your comments. I see where you're coming from on your points, and based on your understanding they are well thought out.
Thank you. Some idiot just came in and dugg down all my comments so no one can read the whole discussion, cause they have to keep clicking show comments.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
How the f**k could they not know where the rocket came from or even whos it was. This was never happening before! Maybe it is by terrorists to show what they are capable of doing.
thats right... the president must know every single bit of knowledge about everything and must be in 100% of control of all 300,000,000+ citizens and do everything in his power to please ALL
That has been debunked, it was not a mystery missile. It was an airplane taken from a unique angle, with the vapor trail contorting in heavy winds. Just google it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
i don't like to comment on politics, but i think Obama is handsome. Most of things he does are right, but everybody may make some mistake because no one can be perfect.
Health Care Bill: SAVES $186 billion on health care, cut Medicare payments to drug companies by 50%, again SAVING tax dollars.
increasing tax brackets on the people who are actually getting wealthier during this recession. Oh those poor rich people...
oh, and let's not forget that 40% of the stimulus package was tax cuts that YOUR f**king Republicans wanted in the bill, and then refused to actually vote for because they are lieing hacks... and the fact that the stimulus saved jobs
TARP was toxic assets, to stop the mortgage melt down, it was never intended to create jobs... MORON..... but then, you're a Republican, so I really don't expect you to know anything....
here you are bitching about what the deficit is, and out of the other corner of your mouth you're saying "Hey, let's start another war!" What, wasn't 3 trillion dollars for the Iraq and Afghanistan war enough? You truly prove that you are a f**king idiot beyond compare here. And let's not forget the fact that Russia and China get oil from Iran. What, you think there would be no political fall out over bombing them? Idiot.
davidg11.. f**k you, and f**k your lies and f**k your distortions and f**k your political party
it's funny when davey mentions "emotionalism", considering most of his posts come off as some irate dude yelling at his laptop "her derp dey terk der jerbs!!! derberma is er moozlum!"
beer summit: trivial
bowing: more trivial
spending $1 trillion on health care: untrue, the CBO estimates the health care reform will reduce the deficit
taxes during a recession: the recession is over, technically. also, he isn't raising taxes, he is letting Bush's unpaid tax cuts expire, and only on the richest Americans (meaning he is keeping the tax cuts for the lower brackets)
unemployment: TARP was Bush (i think it was necessary). Saying unemployment would stop at 8% was an underestimation, not an actual action
enemies: comment was a bit of a gaffe, but they actually are his political foes. he had to deal with an unusual amount of hostility from right wing media and Republican senators and congressmen.
Iran: let's start another war! (sarcasm)
Well at least Obama,
Hasn't killed over 100,000 civilians in the course of 8 years.
Hasn't killed over 3,000 troops.
Hasn't invaded 2 countries.
Hasn't shot anyone in the face. 8)
Meanwhile the Red states collect welfare and don't pay much in taxes .
And the Blue states pay taxes and are much better educated.
it certainly would be nice if the blue states stopped supporting the red states who cannot generate enough income to keep their own governments running, which is about thirty at last count.
It was an ironic title. I think Obama and the Democrats have got a LOT done despite unprecedented conservative obstructionism, for instance:
What Obama Has Done [Comprehensive Edition] http://goo.gl/fb/Q5LhK
He sure did with all the empty promises he made during campaigning. It sure takes a man of pure dignity to sign an executive order to execute an american citizen without any judicial process.
"Passed legislation to curb greenhouse gases and improve the environment"
Global warming isn't real.
"Improved our international standing"
This is also not true.
"Ended the Iraq War"
Why do we still have 50,000 troops in Iraq? Why are there still thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of private contractors in Iraq?
"Passed Financial Industry Reform"
Loose use of the word reform. Reform isn't the word i think of when describing the granting of even more power to a private cartel of banks.
"But the best thing he did is driving neanderthal conservative fascist racist assh**es like YOU crazy!"
A much more accurate example of fascism, is the military working with BP to occupy the gulf coast and keep others out of the area.
Keep believing fabricated data if you wish. I will stick to the hard evidence. If the earth warms, it is not because of carbon emissions. It is from something else, such as the sun emitting more heat.
Yes give him plenty of time and watch as nothing meaningful will happen. He is only the president, he knows he can't do anything that really needs to be done so it's just not going to happen. Who put him up to be president, his supporters, which are not us BTW did and he can't change things in a meaningful way even if he wanted to. So it's politics as usual and forget justice. Just forget about it, and the American dream, it's only a dream. He's the president, he can only look important and make meaningless changes or changes that are not in the best of freedoms interest.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pretty much, if people are too dumb to just believe that obama not fixing everything that happened in an 8 year period over the course of 2 years I would say that actual facts seem to have escaped peopleComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Bush wanted regulation.... Really? Wow... Just f**king wow...
the same clown that wanted to get rid of the EPA and the FDA so Americans could have clean air and water... and you have the balls to claim that he wanted to Regulate anything?
"onitment" you are right on the mark. Add to that the fact that Obama didn't lie to the American people about weapons of mass destruction that don't exist in order to justify a "war" that didn't need to happen. Obama listens and has sought to be compromising and conciliatory since the the Nov. 2 election. His opponents have, as expected, exemplified nothing but hatred and intolerance, convinced they have a right to overturn everything he has done. If Obama hadn't done what he did, I'm convinced unemployment would have hit 40 percent. He's deserves a lot more credit than people are giving him.
That site is pretty damn funny.
"Will of God thwarted by the State of Delaware"
"Guinness’ Curse? Record holders for ‘World’s Oldest Person’ keep dying"
And the Republicans haven't spelled out a single thing they will reduce spending. I assume you are holding them accountable as well, or is fiscal rage limited to Democrats?
I did the math using Bureau of Labor Statistics chart and I show that Bush created 2.768 million jobs Feb. 2000 to Jan. 2008 and Obama loosing a total of 3.348 million jobs during his presidency so far.
So let's just look at their one piece and say Obama is wonderful. If he is so wonderful why have we only gained a total of 344,000 jobs in the last year according to Bureau of Labor Statistics chart? That doesn't even cover the amount of people entering the the workforce each year. Not even close.
Actually, if you calculate from 01Feb. 2001 (10 days after Bush took office) to 01Feb. 1 2009, the net jobs created by Bush/Cheney only adds up to 1.08 million http://bit.ly/aVxxbX
That is a more accurate way to tally up the numbers than calculating from 01Jan. 2001-01Jan. 2009, although with the lack of individual daily data, neither is 100% accurate.
This is a classic example of how you have to balance things out.. he's doing all this work behind the scenes.. a lot of Americans probably don't know that he did all these things.. but he hasn't done a good job of promoting his work. The republicans understand the power of the media and used it to their advantage.
pinkpackratNov 9, 2010
yeah-- right on!!!!!!
jibbityjabNov 10, 2010
http://digg.com/news/politics/what_in_the_f**k_has_obama_done_so_far
novenatorNov 10, 2010Submitter
Well, that site makes some good points as well. Obama has proven to be far too much of a pragmatic diplomat that is too eager to compromise away the strongest elements of reform early on in a futile attempt to appease the establishment and his opponents.
This should not diminish the accomplishments he has managed to get done however in the face of the a record breaking obstruction and negativity campaign by the right. All in all, things are slowly starting to turn around, even though I get impatient with the pace of reform as well, and wish he would take bolder stands.
live_wire_Nov 10, 2010
I can't see a submission date on yours. Digg bug?
tsuruchibrianNov 9, 2010
Technically congress is the entity that is supposed to be "doing" things (i.e. creating laws). The president's job is to be in charge of the military, foreign relations, and the execution of the laws that congress creates. Technically he can only help or hinder existing congressional bills, by signing them into law or vetoing them.
We should really keep this in mind when evaluating the performance of both presidents and congressi (congresses sounds weird).
mphazonNov 10, 2010
congressi sounds weirder.
tsuruchibrianNov 10, 2010
You are probably mentally pronouncing it in a weird way.
drprince89Nov 10, 2010
you must be mentally pronouncing congresses in a weird way, its a lot more natural than either pronunciation of congressi.
doodlemasterNov 10, 2010
"weird" is a matter of opinion so there's no point and arguing what's weirder.
But for the record it would just be congress. Not congressi or congresses.
"...the performance of both presidents and congress"
tsuruchibrianNov 10, 2010
@doodlemaster
The "congresses" I was referring to where the different congresses we could potentially evaluate (e.g. the 110th congress, the 11th congress, etc)
defaratiNov 13, 2010
wouldn't that be just - congress' - instead of congresses or congressi
tsuruchibrianNov 13, 2010
I don't even think congress' means anything. The single apostrophe indicates a plural possessive but "congress" is singular.
congress's (indicating that one congress possesses)
congresses (more than on congress)
congresses' (indicating that many congresses possess)
tsuruchibrianNov 13, 2010
Just to clarify, I know congressi is wrong.
"Congressi" would be the plural form of hypothetical word "Congressus"
defaratiNov 13, 2010
well one thing is for sure there is nothing like congressi
arkzNov 10, 2010
I like toast.
amaoicanNov 10, 2010
You have a strange definition of "doing". So, is it the brain or the body that "does" stuff? Congress is like the brain, the executive branch is like the body. Sorta. Well, Congress is like the mother, and the federal government is like the child that must do what his mother tells him with the president being the brain and .... The courts is the father who tells the mother and the child when they screw up. Or maybe I have the mother and father reversed. You know, this analogy sucks.
The point is the executive branch, or government, is the branch that actually does stuff. Congress passes laws saying what the government should be doing, the court makes sure the congress and the government are following the laws, including the constitution, and the president is the head of government.
The three branches of government, including congress and the courts, is an oft-repeated misnomer.
tsuruchibrianNov 10, 2010
That's why I said "does" stuff in quotes.
Technically ALL branches are doing stuff, but the things that people generally attribute to the president like starting wars, fixing healthcare, fixing the economy, raising/lowering taxes, bailing out companies, etc, are all related the passing laws which is actually congress's responsibility.
In a sense people actually know this when they hear and say things like "Congress is stopping the president's plan", but they just don't realize that they should actually be looking at it as the president stopping congress's plans with his veto power (if you want to describe the crazy s**t they come up with as a plan).
amaoicanNov 10, 2010
Well, it is an important distinction. Look at the TARP - something like half the money was never "spent" (leant). Congress authorized $700 billion but the federal government didn't spend anything near that.
And let's not forget about Andrew Jackson's famous words, "They have made their decision, now let them enforce it" (talking about the Supreme Court, just before doing the opposite of what they ordered).
gstepNov 10, 2010
Technically it's just "Congress", as it encompasses both the House and Senate.
tsuruchibrianNov 10, 2010
I was referring to "a congress" as one particular set of representatives at any given point in time (e.g. the 111th congress)
mal1964Nov 10, 2010
So technically Bush is not all the blame?
tsuruchibrianNov 10, 2010
Bush did a lot of really terrible things. He should probably be in prison right now.
The democrats (and republicans) in congress that used their power to allow Bush do all these really terrible things are complicit.
Most of the terrible things Bush did would not have been possible without laws passed from congress. Some, however, originated completely from the executive branch.
davidkincaNov 10, 2010
I'd be okay with half of congress getting imprisoned. That'll teach them not to carelessly disregard the constitution anymore.
defaratiNov 13, 2010
yeah. so would I. but who's gonna imprison them......congress?
novadeezDec 3, 2010
What? No, the judicial branch would imprison them.
rick283Nov 10, 2010
Ok, so the Democratic congress f**ked things up and Bush and Obama helped them.
tsuruchibrianNov 10, 2010
From 2006 to 2010, yes.
afterforever21Nov 10, 2010
more like the congress allowed bush to get away w/ alot, and more like this congress hasn't allowed obama to do as much.
Spike_stitchNov 10, 2010
For those who need a list what he has done check this out
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/11/01/what-obama-has-done-comprehensive-edition/
schlueckerNov 10, 2010
This is great! I'm glad you posted this because I have felt like Obama did a lot throughout these last couple years.
danconiaNov 10, 2010
Interesting that some people will defend Obama because Congress is the entity that is "in charge", and yet Bush still gets blamed for the economy even though Congress was overwhelmingly Democratic at the time...
Both parties suck. Obama sucks. Bush sucks. Pelosi and Reid suck. Boehner and McConnell suck as well.
ericschc1Nov 10, 2010
Interesting you chastise the Democratic congress that was in power for only the last 2 of Bush's 8 years & completely overlook what was done in tandem by the Republican congress & executive branch for the first 6. Our country didn't magically start turning to s**t in '06 when the Democrats took control.
ect5150Nov 10, 2010
That's reasonable and all, but when the linked article looks at jobs created "by Obama" being greater than all of those created "by Bush" - what do you expect since Obama has been in office for 2 years and Bush was in it for 8 with the worst recession since the great depression in his last two.
Most people on Digg want to you believe the president is directly in charge of economic performance when this simply isn't true. If we can blame Bush for the recession then the can blame Obama for a lack of a recovery. Both arguments would be baseless.
Websites like the one in the link are standard from both side of the political spectrum - they cherry pick examples and present them in a fashion that makes their side look good.
The first bullet point "Created more private sector jobs in 2010 than during entire Bush years" is certainly cherry picked because they look at private sector jobs, not private and public. Also, stating it that way leaves out the fact that the Bush years had the second longest period of job creation in the history of the US - the numbers are skewed by the recession which by the way will wind up skewing Obama's numbers when everything is said and done with. The author of the website claims he could do a better job "in his sleep" ... not likely.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mulcher2Nov 13, 2010
And what did Bush and the republican congress do so terrible with our economy through 2006. It was some of the greatest growth years ever other than the 9 months after 9/11.
Things started to go downhill not long after Pelosi took over...
now you can digg me down and this is why digg is going out of business.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tsuruchibrianNov 10, 2010
I would like to point out that I was not defending Obama nor Bush. I am merely pointing out as a non-partisan (someone who did not vote for Bush, Gore, Kerry, Obama, nor McCain), that Congress is the entity largely responsible for the laws that get passed.
Congress is capable of passing laws without the help of the president, but the opposite is not true.
badqatNov 10, 2010
Regulations get passed without the help of Congress. Granted, Congress gives the executive branch the authority to pass regulations, but it's pretty much hands off from that point on.
So exactly how is the opposite not true? Because regulations = laws, and the administration pretty well sets its own course from there on out, pending potential smackdowns by the judicial branch.
tsuruchibrianNov 11, 2010
@badqat
The regulations that the executive branch creates are either restricted by the US constitution or within the scope of executing the laws that congress creates.
Congress holds the trump card in that they can create new laws which can change or restrict the scope of the regulations that the executive branch makes.
These regulations are supposed to be aligned with the spirit of the US constitution or laws that congress creates, and the judicial branch is in charge of determining that.
More often than not it is the laws themselves that regular people are praising or criticizing, and rarely the specific regulations that guide enforcement.
If you have a problem with the way a particular federal law is enforced, but you have no issue with the law itself, then you should complain about the president rather than congress. I can't even remember a controversial issue that had to do with the way a federal law was specifically enforced rather than the law itself (although I am pretty sure it must happen occasionally).
gmc74Nov 10, 2010
That is great tsuruchubrian, but when a candidate campaigns on 'Change and Hope' he is taking the responsibilities of change on to himself. If the change does not happen, or it is negative, then he needs to be held accountable. If he doesn't want to take credit for the failures, he shouldn't get credit for the successes (or successi if that works better for you).
That being said, he had a monumental task in front of him, and it is unlikely that he or anyone else could affectively turn the ship in 2 years. His strength is in getting people to believe his message, and become inspired. Unfortunately, the people that fall for that don't have influence over the things that can actually boost the economy.
tsuruchibrianNov 10, 2010
I think it is perfectly reasonable to criticize every president for the promises the make. Not just for failing to keep their promises, but also because they should have known they are not even supposed to be responsible for many of the changes they claim to they want to make.
"We" (the royal we) should also blame ourselves for not understanding the way our government works, and allowing ourselves to be lead to believe that the president could be capable of making all these changes himself.
That said, I think any sort of criticism for the actual laws that are getting passed or not getting passed should be mostly directed towards congress. The president can get part of the blame as well for vetoing or not vetoing certain bills.
If the mayor of San Diego claimed to be able to fix ALL the nation's problems from his mayoral position, should we place all the blame on him because he failed? No, we just call him an idiot, and place the blame where it really belongs. We can also call ourselves idiots if we actually believed him.
gmc74Nov 10, 2010
The Congress is responsible for writing and passing bills, the President makes them into laws (yes, there are vetoed bills that can be passed with a two thirds vote).
To draw the line at the black and white responsibilities, and ignore the influence that the President wields, is short sighted.
As for your mayor analogy, I would blame the mayor for being a moron, and the blind followers for being gullible.
tsuruchibrianNov 10, 2010
@gmc74
I am not drawing a black and white line:
I said "The president can get part of the blame as well for vetoing or not vetoing certain bills."
I am pointing out that the idea that the president is solely responsible for these things is not correct.
If I had to assign numbers I might say 25% president and 75% congress or something along those lines.
mulcher2Nov 13, 2010
Last I checked, he worked his ass off for 2 years for this job. This wasn't 'thrust on to him' The economy was crap for more than 2 months before election day and he never once changed is 'change and hope' message so he needs to be accountable for that promise and he's failed miserably at it. Typical lying politican
adam2uberNov 10, 2010
It's congresses. You would only use an "i" if it ended in "us." And that applies to Latin.
tsuruchibrianNov 10, 2010
I know that. I was only commenting that it sounds more correct to me because of the similarity to that latin rule. Obviously it's not really applicable.
adam2uberNov 10, 2010
If only it was. I do have to agree that congresses sounds strange because of the S's.
iriemeditationNov 10, 2010
Keith Olberman last night: "it has been 7 days since the new house took office.. mr. boehner, where are the jobs?" Hahaah yea Keith! We're glad you're back! (bury me, you hateful loser!)
mulcher2Nov 13, 2010
Olberman? He's back? I guess all 25 of his viewers noticed, I didn't.
harrisbradleyNov 10, 2010
Actually 'the execution of the laws that congress creates' would be the judicial branch. The executive branch ratifies laws that congress votes on. Just semantics.
dtubbsNov 10, 2010
There is no such thing as "congressi". There is one Congress, composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
tsuruchibrianNov 11, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress
That is the current congress. We have had 110 congresssesses in our nation's history. The next congress will be the 112th congress. The current United States congress at any given time is often simply called "Congress". This is analogous to how there have been 44 different US presidents, even though there is only 1 person referred to as "the president" at any given time.
psy333cheNov 11, 2010
Thank You for trying to educate the many here who spout uneducated opinions without any knowledge of the process along with the need to blame
hothedyNov 11, 2010
The Fix
There recently was an article in the St. Petersburg , Fl. Times. The Business Section asked readers for ideas on: "How Would You Fix the Economy?" I think this guy nailed it!
Dear Mr. President,
Please find below my suggestion for fixing America 's economy. Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.
You can call it the "Patriotic Retirement Plan":
There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:
1) They MUST retire. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.
2) They MUST buy a new AMERICAN Car. Forty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed.
3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - Housing Crisis fixed.
It can't get any easier than that!!
P.S. If more money is needed, have all members in Congress pay their taxes...
Mr. President, while you're at it, make Congress retire on Social Security and Medicare. I'll bet both programs would be fixed pronto!
If you think this would work, please forward to everyone you know.
Something to make you think Hmmmm?
capnsteve67Nov 11, 2010
Nothing gets done anywhere in any branch of the government without money. All money (authorization) for everything the executive branch does comes from the congress. The president creates a suggested budget for the executive branch, but it's AUTHORIZED by congress, while the president has final signature - he/she has no ability to affect the detail of the budget - they can only sign or veto. The president can suggest a war - but congress must approve it. The president can suggest tax increases/decreases, but congress must approve it. The president can suggest spending billions to wiretap every phone call in/out of America, but congress must approve it.
8wix5Nov 10, 2010
This is a fantastic website - good job!
weirddemonNov 10, 2010
I'm not sure why you were thumbed down... this IS awesome. But... everyone else was doing it and I just wanted to be popular... :(
rick283Nov 10, 2010
It's lame because it tries to trick you and be all ironic...
8wix5Nov 10, 2010
I don't get why I'm thumbed down either. Probably all five of those Tea Party people rallied together in an effort to silence Obama supporters >:(
novenatorNov 10, 2010Submitter
Don't take it personally. The exact same comment on another thread could get voted up, it happens.
Closed AccountNov 10, 2010
Because the stuff that is listed as down by this site are mostly negative actions, or atleast actions that are not a positive for our nation. Other statements like the one on the homepage are just completely inaccurate.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountNov 10, 2010
http://digg.com/search?q=what+the+f**k+has+obama+done+so+far&submit=
And that one 8 days ago? It's the same site. Buried as dupe?
jdenzerNov 10, 2010
Booo Hoooo. It made the FP and yours didn't. Geez, what does that have to do with the content of the site?
bdbrNov 10, 2010
Those weren't his pages..heh, I'm pretty sure quirkopatra would never submit any pro-Obama pages.
Closed AccountNov 10, 2010
Mine? I didn't submit this. It just seems like I've seen Novy complaining about dupes lately. He just did it himself.
jdenzerNov 10, 2010
For crying out loud Quirk. You complain when Novy cries about dupes, now you want to cry about it. Geez let it go, so digg has dupes, big f**king deal. It has been like that for years. And what is it with your weird obsession with Novy? It's one thing to follow him on digg, but you carry it on from other social sites.
And FYI to you and bdbr, I didn't mean that article was your submission. I was just saying whatever you submit in general.
Closed AccountNov 10, 2010
jdenz - oh, the hypocrisy....Novy's the one who is obsessed. He's the one who has authored articles showing that HE is following conservatives all over the internet.
Also, YOU seem to be following me all over Digg. Every comment...there you are in response. Project much?
miklkitNov 10, 2010
Yes. You are buried because you are a dupe. Or is it because you are a dope?
PyriteGenieNov 10, 2010
f**k all.
sanmanNov 10, 2010
he has built this f**king website
he has also used "I" and "me" more times in his first 2 years in office than all other presidents in modern memoryComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
davidg11Nov 10, 2010
That's because half of HIS country are "enemies" and cling to their guns and bible.
djjansenNov 10, 2010
so far he's done the same as bush, lied, squirmed and provided free cash to his buddies.
chocolatebear5Nov 10, 2010
awesome sauce.
Closed AccountNov 10, 2010
People are commenting without looking at the site. I've seen it before on Digg...so I've seen it before. It is actually praising Obama.
jdenzerNov 10, 2010
You mean the right-wing Obama haters are commenting without looking at the site. Boo f**king hooo. But just more proof that the far-right doesn't like to read.
miklkitNov 10, 2010
Or doesn't know how.
Closed AccountNov 10, 2010
Jdenz - it looks like people from the left AND right are commenting without looking.
harrisbradleyNov 10, 2010
LOL, I think the comment was referring to Obama supporters thinking the site was slamming Obama instead of reading it and figuring out it praised him. Ironic.
chongqingkingNov 10, 2010
it goes without saying that anything dug to the front page of Diggs is either attacking GOPs, creationists, or both in the case of Sarah Palin... or, casting positive light on Obama, Conan, and the Oatmeal.
mtduff421Nov 10, 2010
and the issue with that is...
socketassaultNov 10, 2010
I'm not into politics. So I can't tell if this is supposed to mock or applaud Obama.
I don't think that's good. :/
jacquelynekNov 10, 2010
It mocks the naysayers and the people who do not want to believe that President Obama is the best President that has ever happened to this country, and at a time when it needed him most. People from other countries are envious in what we have for a leader. Whats not good now.. is the regardless of politics we are a house divided and even the strongest leader on earth is going to have a trouble in a situation like this. Furthermore, our media has been corrupted for quite some time by the wealthy elite who are doing their damnest to defeat the voting power of everyone else. It is getting progressively worse and more apparent as time goes on...
This midterm election was nothing more than people either voting against or acting passively against their own interests.
We are all paying for it in the end.
socketassaultNov 10, 2010
Well, in that case, it had quite an ironic effect on me.
Because, really, none of his decisions have benefited me in any way.
Oh, and good job digging me down, digg. I asked a question.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedNov 10, 2010
And it has no affect on anyone you know either?
socketassaultNov 10, 2010
Not really. Especially not getting a latina in court or whatever one the fact was.
I don't care if there's a latina in court. The only reason it's news is because she's not white. And that's racist. I'm not racist, therefore, I don't care.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedNov 10, 2010
So you being on your mom's insurance until you are 26 means nothing to you?
socketassaultNov 10, 2010
See what I wrote in response to that below.
davidg11Nov 10, 2010
Should it? Maybe he's actually a healthy kid and doesn't want the country to go broke and would rather have that money towards his education.
It's called prioritization. Liberals do not know what prioritization is. They think health care is more important than getting the economy on solid ground. Hence they were voted out in droves.
Not all of us sick, hacking, cancer ridden folk who require expensice health care.
But most people? Would like a damn job and not a bankrupt country.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedNov 10, 2010
Oh so he wouldn't benefit from lower interest rates on students loans?
socketassaultNov 10, 2010
I would much prefer a lower college cost that lower interest rates.
And no, in my case, I wouldn't benefit.
audiomodderNov 10, 2010
@socketassault...no, it's a milestone, that's why it's news. maybe if you weren't white you would understand, but your comment makes it very clear that you've never been the target of racial discrimination (and i don't mean "oh, i hate affirmative action" discrimination, i mean like because your skin is a different color you score 30% lower on a test kind of discrimination)
socketassaultNov 10, 2010
"i mean like because your skin is a different color you score 30% lower on a test kind of discrimination"
wtf does this have to do with a latina in court? I don't give one s**t who's in court, who's in my government, or hell, who my president is.
As long as they're doing their job, I. don't. care.
Bringing attention to it because someone who's a race other that white did something is racist.
"no, it's a milestone" A milestone for who exactly? Latinos? Good for them. I don't know why their whole race somehow benefits because one of "their people" got into court.
If some white guy gets elected as president of a country in Africa. I wouldn't give a s**t. It's not a milestone for me. It's an achievement for him because he got that far. Good for him.
I'm not going to celebrate it as some amazing milestone for the entire white race, because that would be racist.
As long as he was doing his job in africa, and she's doing her job in court, I don't care what they look like. Hell, even if they weren't doing their job, I wouldn't care what they looked like. I'd fire them both.
tl;dr it's racist.
Closed AccountNov 11, 2010
wait... aren't you the guy in the party that wants to get rid of the department of education?
isn't your party mantra that : the government didn't create jobs, only rich people you know the ones that have seen their income go up during this recession... so where are all the jobs?
really dave... what republicans seem to forget is the Preamble of the Constitution says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
see that part about promoting the general welfare, and that part about establishing justice, and securing liberty...
If your f**king retarded party had written it it would be:
We the People of the United States, provide for the common defence, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
because it seems that republicans only want to spend money on a useless standing army... to the tune of $685 billion... after throwing 3 trillion dollars down a hole on a war that was never necessary...and f**k those old and poor people
what? they not American enough for you?
then you have the balls to talk about priorities
davidg11Nov 10, 2010
Socket...I don't think you understand the liberal mantra....you're too stupid to understand this website and therefore you are not one of them: The enlightened elite.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
socketassaultNov 10, 2010
Hey look bro. I'm 17. Until Obama lowers the cost of college and decreases taxes so I can pay off loans and crap when I'm out. He hasn't really done much for me.
Oh, and sarcasm doesn't go well over the internet. So I can't tell if you are or not. :|Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
davidg11Nov 10, 2010
Not sarcastic....it's actually how liberals feel about your so called ignorance...and therefore they feel superior to you.
Yet they haven't a clue why the electoral map is so RED after this past election. It's kind of amusing really.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
socketassaultNov 10, 2010
Oh alright, I see it now. I'm in AZ, and we haven't got many Democrats left after this election. It WAS funny to watch.
Closed AccountNov 10, 2010
yeah, you're 17 which now means that when you do go to college you will be covered under your parents insurance until you are 26... which means if you wind up in an accident or sick while you're in college, than you'll actually be covered... and not f**ked for not having insurance while you're a full time student... which means Obama has actually done something that will benefit YOU directly.
happy?
laugh all you want about the lack of Democrats... you're the f**king idiot who will be getting a lower minimum wage if you do work while you're in college
and dividg11... is a f**ktard... a lieing right-wing f**ktard
davidg11Nov 10, 2010
It's spelled "lying". Meanwhile your parent's premiums rise at least 10-13% and if your parents can not afford or do not have health insurance, they will both be fined $695 per person per year until they buy it.
Oh, but the liberal elitist above me failed to tell you that. I wonder why that might be?
Would you rather your parents have more money in their pocket to support you in college? Or should they pay higher premiums and fines for health insurance?
And I don't know your situation like the liberal supposedly intimately does, but if you are a healthy 17 yr old, like I was...I think the last thing on your mind from 17 through 26 years old was health care coverage. Education was my top priority at your age. Not blood thinning drugs and angioplasty. But hey....that's just me. Let the liberal dictate what you want and need. That's what they do best.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
socketassaultNov 10, 2010
@tmonsta1
I haven't looked into the details of that healthcare thing. But, you're acting as though I just got 8 years of free coverage, if the previous coverage was until 18 years of age.
There's no way that can happen without an increase in cost. Absolutely. no. way.
That said, from what I understand, health insurance is a private business thing. not government. So I don't understand why the government is making decisions for the private companies.
Also, I'm not working through college.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountNov 10, 2010
oh, so you're saying if you're in an accident you'd rather just pay the outrageous bills right out of pocket huh? or perhaps bankrupt your family? that would be better? or did you not realize that over 50% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills?
The point is, you have 8 years of coverage, that you wouldn't have had before. And your family is more financially secure for it.
government has always made decisions for private companies...it's one of the reasons we have a government... to keep them from dumping coal sludge in drinking water, paying slave wages, (see Pullman Strike if you need to know exactly how bad a corporation can get if not kept in check) also take a look at civil rights legislation that would not allow companies to descriminate about who they serve and who they hire...
but hey, if you think companies will just do the right thing, I'll just assume you don't know s**t about US history...
and david, in real life adult world $695 a year isn't s**t...
hey, aren't you supposed to be the guy who supports the party of personal responsibility? well, carrying health insurance IS the responsiblie thing... I'm sure your head just imploded from the sudden shock of bulls**t escaping your brain....
socketassaultNov 10, 2010
Where would I have an accident? I'm a nerd who sits at his computer all day, plays TF2, and goes to a community college every other day. I don't even excercise.
I think people should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding health insurance. And again, you present the 8 years of coverage as free. Those eight years of coverage are 8 years the insurance companies would normally have gained a new customer. Now they're losing those eight years from the 19 year old, and they're going to have to make up for that lost profit. Where do they do that? They add it onto the existing plan. What if I graduate from college in 2011 at 21? I get job, get my own healthcare etc.
Do my parents still have to pay that extra amount to pay for the coverage of the now, nonexistant kid?
Furthermores is the burden from the lost profit distributed to me also, a kidless, young adult?
Admittedly, I really don't know anything about healthcare. I'm jsut basing my arguments off of things I'm assuming from my little pool of knowledge.
ALSO. " to keep them from dumping coal sludge in drinking water, paying slave wages"
There's a difference between regulation and making decision for private companies.
Dumping coal sludge in drinking water would be a regulation issue, as in "Dude, you can't dump that in the water."
But telling companies what they have to sell to people? And for how long? That seems like a business decision. I don't understand why the government is making those.
One final point. Either you've never taken an english class in your life, or it was too long ago for you to remember. But personal insults are the worst way to argue your case. For example, "I'll just assume you don't know s**t about US history... " and " I'm sure your head just imploded from the sudden shock of bulls**t escaping your brain...."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
davidg11Nov 10, 2010
Actually my minor was in history. Took AP American and AP European history in high school which translated to beaucoup credits in college with my 4's. Sorry...you're not dealing with a retard in that area...awwww.....poor thing..you chose the wrong subject to debate.
I'm not saying the government doesn't need a role in regulation. But child labor for 18 hours in a sweatshop in the 1920's is just a wee slightly different issue than requiring every employer to pay for your health care.
I could even compromise for what I actually had during college...catastrophic health care coverage. A broken bone is not going to bankrupt you. Antibiotics for something is not going to bankrupt you. And $695 per person per year in each household may not be s**t to you, but it is a huge tax on people who do not wish to be covered.
To a college student, you elitist...it's a lot of damn money if their parents don't have coverage they can go under. But you don't think about those situations...do you?
Of course not. You know best, remember? Dictate to the masses what they need. And the masses will continue to vote your asses out of office. Guar-an-teed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedNov 10, 2010
"Admittedly, I really don't know anything about healthcare. I'm jsut basing my arguments off of things I'm assuming from my little pool of knowledge."
Stay in school kid, you need it.
socketassaultNov 10, 2010
I'm graduating high school with 51 college credits with math up to Differential Equations and English 102 completed. I'm not going to go spend hours researching health care just so I can have ALL the facts right. If some of the stuff was wrong, you can tell me. Instead you attacked my admittal of lack of knowledge.
At least I'm honest. Most likely you'd just start pulling facts out of nowhere.
So just stfu.
jdenzerNov 10, 2010
I'm sorry, I know you will take this the wrong way. But at 17 you really are too young to understand much of the hardship that those older than you face daily. I'm not saying that you have to have lived 30+ years or anything. It's just this attitude as if nothing the Pres and Dems has affected you directly or even indirectly is either your too young to understand or that you really don't understand.
socketassaultNov 10, 2010
Maybe I don't get it. I don't know.
I don't want to have to pay a crapload of money for college. I don't want to come out of college into a crapload of taxes. And I don't want to spend half my money paying off some huge debt that wasn't my fault in anyway whatsoever.
I don't understand why these bailouts are handed out. I don't understand why I will be paying for some lazy ass who couldn't even pull off B's in high school and land a job at a pizza place to pay his bills. I don't understand why politicians are making decisions for me. I don't understand why we have this huge government that we're spending huge amounts of money on that screws up as much stuff as it fixes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedNov 10, 2010
Understand this: Your ignorance is causing your shortsightedness.
I don't have kids and yet my taxes go to schools for kids like you, why should I have to pay taxes for you? I've never been in an accident and yet here I am paying more for insurance because people in your age group cause a higher proportion of accidents. I also don't like the fact that I have to pay more for goods and services because we have minimum wage laws in this country, I don't understand why businesses can't pay kids like you what ever they want, you should be paying them for the skills you are learning and for the all the mistakes you will start off making. I also don't understand why kids like you complain about the price of college when colleges are a business and should be able to charge whatever the market is willing to pay, if you can't afford college then you probably don't deserve to go (blame your parents for not thinking ahead and saving money).
But what I really hate is having to "pay" for things because people like you cannot see the bigger picture and only care about themselves and vote with their gut because they are only 17 and can't be bothered to do research on a subject because they can't see how it might effect them.
socketassaultNov 10, 2010
First of all, I'm homeschooled. So my parents paid their taxes toward OTHER kids as well as for books for me. So you did nothing to support me.
I've never been in an accident either. Hell, I still have my permit, because my parents didn't let me get it until I was 17 and I put it off another half a year. If I was paying for insurance I wouldn't like paying extra either. I can't think of any alternatives right now.
I'm not sure on my opinion on minimum wage laws because I don't know enough about it and what the effects on product prices would be if it changed. For now, if you want cheap stuff, buy it from Hong Kong.
And about the college thing. I don't understand why the cost per credit hour at ASU is 10 times that of the community college I go to. That's an internal issue that I don't think has much to do with the government.
Basically I would support a minimum of restrictions just to keep the country running the way it should and let people make their own decisions regarding private matters.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountNov 10, 2010
well Dave... My minor was US history... so you might want to bust those books out again,and take a good look at the Reconstrustion period, post civil war... also look up Laisez-faire and the Industrial revolution
than look up the Pullman Strike
than look up Homestead Strike
also feel free to look up the Standard Oil Trust
and Sherman Antitrust Act
for someone who claims to know history, you sure don't know s**t about it, considering history in this country has already proven WHY we have the laws we do
and Socket... you are exactly what I expect from a homeschooled kid... stupid as f**k about anything in the real world. Do you want to know why the cost per credit hour is 10 times the cost... that's what taxes in your area are subsidizing... so as to your bulls**t of, my parents payed taxes, but Ididn't get anything... you're flat f**king WRONG
and there is no more Hong Kong you twit, control of Hong Kong was turned back of to China. Please if you're going to try and sound like you now anything, at least know something
ever been on a date? have any real world friends? ever been to a school dance? thre is a real world that goes beyond that little sheltered s**t hole you call a life
ultramagnus0001Nov 11, 2010
for socketassault
http://tinypic.com/r/24zw506/7
socketassaultNov 11, 2010
@tmonsta1 I never said anything about community college funding. I would support community colleges charging more to make up for the money they lost from cutting support from taxes. I wouldn't want to pay for a community college's funding either. Expecially since most of the people that go there are unmotivated idiots.
And as far as I know Hong Kong still exists, but yes, has been absorbed back into china. My point was, all the ebay stores that obviously sell cheap chinese stuff ship out of Hong Kong. Me saying that you should buy from Hong Kong was a generalization for cheap chinese stuff from overseas.
But I'm glad you had to resort to over analysis to make yourself seem right.
Also, personal attacks don't argue any point whatsoever. And they make you sound like an idiot.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
socketassaultNov 11, 2010
@ultramagnus Unfortunately I'm a white middle class male, which puts me on the s**t end of scholarship scale.
enantiodromiaNov 10, 2010
"der dee derp herp derp liberrulz!!"
-davidg11
socketassaultNov 10, 2010
That was intelligent.
audiomodderNov 10, 2010
did you look at the website? it was listing what Obama's done for the past 2 years one accomplishment at a time. if you don't understand why it would exist, it means one of two things: you keep up very well on what the president's done and don't understand why the site is necessary, or you have already determined that Obama's done nothing and the site is all lies and therefore unnecessary. one says you're ignorant of the political discourse in the US, the other says your intentionally ignorant of the polical realities of the US. either one is ignorance, and the only way you combat ignorance is with facts.
socketassaultNov 10, 2010
Yes, and my point was that I don't really think that affects me enough(if at all).
Closed AccountNov 10, 2010
if you think none of that affects you, then you are just a moron
and there's a reason they're called accidents.... it's because no one expected them to happen.
What, you are somehow immune to being hit by a car walking down the street? Or having an allergic reaction in a restaurant? Or falling down the stairs on the way to the basement in your house?
socketassaultNov 11, 2010
I've pretty much tried all the food I want to try. So if I was going to get a reaction it would have already happened.
As previously stated, I only go to school and play pc games. I don't walk across streets.
We don't have a basement. We don't even have stairs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
echootaNov 10, 2010
@socketassault Props to you. I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning, but credit to you for being honest in your comments. I see where you're coming from on your points, and based on your understanding they are well thought out.
socketassaultNov 10, 2010
Thank you. Some idiot just came in and dugg down all my comments so no one can read the whole discussion, cause they have to keep clicking show comments.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
echootaNov 10, 2010
Yeah... opinions. Voting is a pretty blunt tool in that respect.
phoufrosNov 10, 2010
It is not what he has done, it is what he hasn't and that is what makes me scared. For instance yesterday: http://digg.com/news/world_news/huge_missile_launched_off_the_california_coast_no_one_knows_who_did_it_or_why_video
How the f**k could they not know where the rocket came from or even whos it was. This was never happening before! Maybe it is by terrorists to show what they are capable of doing.
Living in USA today makes me scared!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountNov 10, 2010
thats right... the president must know every single bit of knowledge about everything and must be in 100% of control of all 300,000,000+ citizens and do everything in his power to please ALL
alienkidNov 10, 2010
Well the thing is that the government does know what is flying in and around US airspace, whether they choose to tell you is a different story.
novenatorNov 10, 2010Submitter
That has been debunked, it was not a mystery missile. It was an airplane taken from a unique angle, with the vapor trail contorting in heavy winds. Just google it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ericschc1Nov 10, 2010
"How the f**k could they not know where the rocket came from or even whos it was. This was never happening before!"
My friend, Google, and I beg to differ. Go ahead and try searching "Unknown Missile Launch" for a date range that stops at November 7th, 2010.
jennifer2536Nov 10, 2010
i don't like to comment on politics, but i think Obama is handsome. Most of things he does are right, but everybody may make some mistake because no one can be perfect.
lovestd
davidg11Nov 10, 2010
No. That would be incorrect. Most of the things he does are wrong.
Beer summits after accusing a white cop of being racist even though he didnt know the facts of the case: WRONG
Bowing to the Japanese Emperor: WRONG
Spending $1 Trillion on health care in a recession that creates few jobs: WRONG
Increasing taxes on any bracket during a recession: WRONG
Claiming unemployment will not rise past 8% after another $1 trillion spent on TARP and unemployment rises to 9.6%? WRONG
Calling fellow americans who do not believe in your liberal philosophy or agenda ENEMIES when you are the president of all americans: WRONG
Thinking you can deal with crazy Iran's govt through sanctions and reasonable talk? WRONG
and I can go on and on and on...I just don't feel like creating a web site to do soComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedNov 10, 2010
Please go on and on!!
It will make it a lot easier to recall all the fox talking points if they are in one spot.
Closed AccountNov 10, 2010
lie much?
Health Care Bill: SAVES $186 billion on health care, cut Medicare payments to drug companies by 50%, again SAVING tax dollars.
increasing tax brackets on the people who are actually getting wealthier during this recession. Oh those poor rich people...
oh, and let's not forget that 40% of the stimulus package was tax cuts that YOUR f**king Republicans wanted in the bill, and then refused to actually vote for because they are lieing hacks... and the fact that the stimulus saved jobs
TARP was toxic assets, to stop the mortgage melt down, it was never intended to create jobs... MORON..... but then, you're a Republican, so I really don't expect you to know anything....
here you are bitching about what the deficit is, and out of the other corner of your mouth you're saying "Hey, let's start another war!" What, wasn't 3 trillion dollars for the Iraq and Afghanistan war enough? You truly prove that you are a f**king idiot beyond compare here. And let's not forget the fact that Russia and China get oil from Iran. What, you think there would be no political fall out over bombing them? Idiot.
davidg11.. f**k you, and f**k your lies and f**k your distortions and f**k your political party
davidg11Nov 10, 2010
There are no lies. There are only facts.
Here is a Pulitzer prize winning web site with health care facts.
Which means, liberal, you can not pick and choose only what sounds good to you and ignore the rest.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/mar/18/top-10-facts-know-about-health-care-reform/
While you curse to the moon and stars...I present logical, reasonable, verifiable facts from a source that isn't the Huffington liberal-rag post.
Once you subtract liberal emotionalism....it all becomes clear just how expensive this health care bill is.
Have a nice day.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
enantiodromiaNov 10, 2010
it's funny when davey mentions "emotionalism", considering most of his posts come off as some irate dude yelling at his laptop "her derp dey terk der jerbs!!! derberma is er moozlum!"
lol
mtduff421Nov 10, 2010
beer summit: trivial
bowing: more trivial
spending $1 trillion on health care: untrue, the CBO estimates the health care reform will reduce the deficit
taxes during a recession: the recession is over, technically. also, he isn't raising taxes, he is letting Bush's unpaid tax cuts expire, and only on the richest Americans (meaning he is keeping the tax cuts for the lower brackets)
unemployment: TARP was Bush (i think it was necessary). Saying unemployment would stop at 8% was an underestimation, not an actual action
enemies: comment was a bit of a gaffe, but they actually are his political foes. he had to deal with an unusual amount of hostility from right wing media and Republican senators and congressmen.
Iran: let's start another war! (sarcasm)
pwnd.
iriemeditationNov 10, 2010
"Other things being equal, it is better to be smart than to be stupid." Happy Birthday Carl Sagan
crapolatimeNov 10, 2010
Nice site.
Well at least Obama,
Hasn't killed over 100,000 civilians in the course of 8 years.
Hasn't killed over 3,000 troops.
Hasn't invaded 2 countries.
Hasn't shot anyone in the face. 8)
Meanwhile the Red states collect welfare and don't pay much in taxes .
And the Blue states pay taxes and are much better educated.
amaoicanNov 10, 2010
"Hasn't shot anyone in the face" I resent that remark. Bill shot in Monica's mouth, not her face.
youareretardedNov 10, 2010
I'm pretty sure he didn't do that either (it landed on her dress).
amaoicanNov 10, 2010
You didn't think he only came once, did you?
sniperhareNov 10, 2010
So by your logic FDR is responsible for every American death in WW2?
Closed AccountNov 10, 2010
Without strawman arguments what would progressives have as a basis for argument?
enantiodromiaNov 10, 2010
it certainly would be nice if the blue states stopped supporting the red states who cannot generate enough income to keep their own governments running, which is about thirty at last count.
or at least a "thank you" might be nice.
tsuruchibrianNov 10, 2010
California is a blue state, and we are apparently broke.
angelbunnyNov 10, 2010
a blue state with red elected leaders, which is why we are broke.
sloppyjoes7Nov 10, 2010
Bush killed civilians and troops?
No, he didn't. Jihadists and Baathists did.
Just curious: What psychotic mindset could make you think Bush killed those people?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njdoo7Nov 10, 2010
Ladies and gents...welcome to the red vs blue circle jerk...lets get this started and see who can be the biggest hypocrite.
danconiaNov 10, 2010
? Hasn't he continued and in some cases escalated the wars?
harrisbradleyNov 10, 2010
You are not supposed to start a sentence with the word "And"; especially that sentence.
onitmentNov 10, 2010
Let's see . . . Just to name a few . . .
Restored dignity to the office of the President
Passed legislation to curb greenhouse gases and improve the environment
Ended the Iraq War
Strengthened the nuclear non-proliferation agreement
Improved our international standing
Passed Financial Industry Reform
Eased restrictions on stem cell research
Passed of Tobacco regulation Act
Implemented education reforms
But the best thing he did is driving neanderthal conservative fascist racist assh**es like YOU crazy!
Closed AccountNov 10, 2010
im burying you for not even clicking on the link
alienkidNov 10, 2010
You should click the link and read the notes, I'm sure every one of those things you mentioned are there
davidg11Nov 10, 2010
Dignity? When did going on "The View" as president become dignity? I think that's when we lost it.
Closed AccountNov 10, 2010
so you're saying Bill O'Reilly has no dignity?
enantiodromiaNov 10, 2010
this may come as a shock to you davey, but not everyone is a husky pissed off white dude from the west coast.
some people are even women.
novenatorNov 10, 2010Submitter
It was an ironic title. I think Obama and the Democrats have got a LOT done despite unprecedented conservative obstructionism, for instance:
What Obama Has Done [Comprehensive Edition] http://goo.gl/fb/Q5LhK
Democratic Change Update http://goo.gl/fb/d38W7
tsuruchibrianNov 10, 2010
>Restored dignity to the office of the President
After Bush, I think just about anybody could have done this, but I will give this one to you.
>Passed legislation to curb greenhouse gases and improve the environment
Congress did this.
>Ended the Iraq War
Didn't even happen yet.
>Strengthened the nuclear non-proliferation agreement
yes
>Improved our international standing
yes
>Passed Financial Industry Reform
Congress did this.
>Eased restrictions on stem cell research
Congress did this.
>Passed of Tobacco regulation Act
Congress did this.
>Implemented education reforms
Congress did this.
>But the best thing he did is driving neanderthal conservative fascist racist assh**es like
YOU crazy!
YES!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njdoo7Nov 10, 2010
"Restored dignity to the office of the President"
He sure did with all the empty promises he made during campaigning. It sure takes a man of pure dignity to sign an executive order to execute an american citizen without any judicial process.
"Passed legislation to curb greenhouse gases and improve the environment"
Global warming isn't real.
"Improved our international standing"
This is also not true.
"Ended the Iraq War"
Why do we still have 50,000 troops in Iraq? Why are there still thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of private contractors in Iraq?
"Passed Financial Industry Reform"
Loose use of the word reform. Reform isn't the word i think of when describing the granting of even more power to a private cartel of banks.
"But the best thing he did is driving neanderthal conservative fascist racist assh**es like YOU crazy!"
A much more accurate example of fascism, is the military working with BP to occupy the gulf coast and keep others out of the area.
ohigginsNov 10, 2010
"Global warming isn't real."
All credibility was lost right there.
njdoo7Nov 10, 2010
Keep believing fabricated data if you wish. I will stick to the hard evidence. If the earth warms, it is not because of carbon emissions. It is from something else, such as the sun emitting more heat.
wjappeNov 10, 2010
Yes give him plenty of time and watch as nothing meaningful will happen. He is only the president, he knows he can't do anything that really needs to be done so it's just not going to happen. Who put him up to be president, his supporters, which are not us BTW did and he can't change things in a meaningful way even if he wanted to. So it's politics as usual and forget justice. Just forget about it, and the American dream, it's only a dream. He's the president, he can only look important and make meaningless changes or changes that are not in the best of freedoms interest.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitNov 10, 2010
Did you, can you understand what is shown on the site?
omeezy4sheezyNov 10, 2010
Unfortunately a bit too late to make any significant difference, but great to know nonetheless.
enantiodromiaNov 10, 2010
why, because the GOP took the House?
alienkidNov 10, 2010
pretty much, if people are too dumb to just believe that obama not fixing everything that happened in an 8 year period over the course of 2 years I would say that actual facts seem to have escaped peopleComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountNov 10, 2010
Bush wanted regulation.... Really? Wow... Just f**king wow...
the same clown that wanted to get rid of the EPA and the FDA so Americans could have clean air and water... and you have the balls to claim that he wanted to Regulate anything?
delusional much?
amaoicanNov 10, 2010
Yes, the Geriatric Old Party is in da house! Getting ready to lay down some laws on this bitch!
Closed AccountNov 10, 2010
GOP= Grand Old Party....
and why did they name themselves that?
To confuse voters. The oldest party in the United States is the Democratic Party.
Republicans. Lieing from the very beginning....
screamingjokerNov 10, 2010
they need to make an espanol version of this. And many other languages as well. Let the people kno.
alienkidNov 10, 2010
If they someone can only read español and not english is probably an illegal and can't vote anyway.. lol
alienkidNov 10, 2010
this is like a week/month too late
jacquelynekNov 10, 2010
It's not too late for 2012.. We need to keep it up... and educate people as much as we can.. we have a corrupted media to content with.
catpartyproductionsNov 10, 2010
this site is pretty f**king awesome (pun intended)
pffflishhhhNov 10, 2010
If only more people noticed this a week and 6 hours ago...
splastikNov 10, 2010
http://whatinthef**khasobamadonesofar.com/
calgaryjayNov 10, 2010
Oblahblah tells more lies than Pinocchio and is out to bankrupt the county.
More proof he is just a liar
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/09/obama-wins-applause-from-indians-with-promise-he-can-never-keep/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
enantiodromiaNov 10, 2010
you can always depend on calgaryjay to supply the thought stopping cliche.
boo1Nov 10, 2010
more proof calgaryjay is a putz.
http:/lookinthemirrorjay.putz
readmymindNov 10, 2010
"onitment" you are right on the mark. Add to that the fact that Obama didn't lie to the American people about weapons of mass destruction that don't exist in order to justify a "war" that didn't need to happen. Obama listens and has sought to be compromising and conciliatory since the the Nov. 2 election. His opponents have, as expected, exemplified nothing but hatred and intolerance, convinced they have a right to overturn everything he has done. If Obama hadn't done what he did, I'm convinced unemployment would have hit 40 percent. He's deserves a lot more credit than people are giving him.
MikeystyleNov 10, 2010
He's kept his successes a secret!
http://www.thechicagodope.com/2010/11/03/obama-vows-to-keep-accomplishments-to-himself/
novenatorNov 10, 2010Submitter
That site is pretty damn funny.
"Will of God thwarted by the State of Delaware"
"Guinness’ Curse? Record holders for ‘World’s Oldest Person’ keep dying"
Very nice!
pdemariaNov 10, 2010
Nice, I like that there is also a PG version.. but honestly, the expletive-laced version is more satisfying
spypiratesNov 10, 2010
Interesting, but there's a much more efficient ways of getting that info across. I saw a facebook group that summed things up nicely.
novenatorNov 10, 2010Submitter
It is located at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Things-Obama-has-done/457458970505?v=info
Other good ones are at: What Obama Has Done [Comprehensive Edition] http://goo.gl/fb/Q5LhK
and the Democratic Change Update http://goo.gl/fb/d38W7
drewbotoNov 10, 2010
What has Obama done according to the website?
He approved a bunch of spending
novenatorNov 10, 2010Submitter
And the Republicans haven't spelled out a single thing they will reduce spending. I assume you are holding them accountable as well, or is fiscal rage limited to Democrats?
lunavoxNov 10, 2010
love it!
trashfree2000Nov 10, 2010
I did the math using Bureau of Labor Statistics chart and I show that Bush created 2.768 million jobs Feb. 2000 to Jan. 2008 and Obama loosing a total of 3.348 million jobs during his presidency so far.
So let's just look at their one piece and say Obama is wonderful. If he is so wonderful why have we only gained a total of 344,000 jobs in the last year according to Bureau of Labor Statistics chart? That doesn't even cover the amount of people entering the the workforce each year. Not even close.
novenatorNov 10, 2010Submitter
Actually, if you calculate from 01Feb. 2001 (10 days after Bush took office) to 01Feb. 1 2009, the net jobs created by Bush/Cheney only adds up to 1.08 million http://bit.ly/aVxxbX
That is a more accurate way to tally up the numbers than calculating from 01Jan. 2001-01Jan. 2009, although with the lack of individual daily data, neither is 100% accurate.
mrnaturalNov 10, 2010
Sorry girls, I'm not susceptible to double negative reverse psychology.
mrsarcasm22Nov 10, 2010
"Appointed first Latina to the US Supreme Court"
Yeah getting lots done. Lots of these are pointless sh*ts.
Closed AccountNov 10, 2010
Whether or not you agree with the content, that website is embarrassingly bad and crass and stupid.
uberahsaanNov 10, 2010
Yes he did.
uaguilarNov 10, 2010
This is a classic example of how you have to balance things out.. he's doing all this work behind the scenes.. a lot of Americans probably don't know that he did all these things.. but he hasn't done a good job of promoting his work. The republicans understand the power of the media and used it to their advantage.
theliNov 10, 2010
"What have the Romans ever done for us?"
successcodesNov 10, 2010
I believe that we have to respect our leaders because we chose them :)
helloimtomNov 10, 2010
what've the romans ever done for us?