Submitted by: Unknown
Via: The Daily Show
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Let’s Get Some Artistic Accuracy Here | Try Anne Hathaway Next »
True Slogans
» 140 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Deelz on Crowd Pleaser Andrew Long on Vandals Cashing In Daniel Bell on Vandals Cashing In noname on I’m So Live imnotreallyhere on Time Travel Protester imnotreallyhere on GREECE imnotreallyhere on GREECE eddi on Does to Jets What it Does to… Lyerra on Haven’t They Heard of Ce… Clueless the amazing… on My Bad 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Animal Gifs: GOTTA MAKE UP FOR LOST TIME, SON
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
OMG HARRI IS STUCK
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
But iz a gud driber!
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
This Is the Cleanest My Car Has Ever Been
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Go To Your Room!
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Darth Maul And His Cat
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Stripey Hoggies
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
Roman Emo
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Turn on the Jets!
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
Owlways and 7eva
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
Good Guy George
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Timothy Olyphant Totally Looks Like Cristian de la Fuente
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Darth Vader Kokeshi
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Ring of the Day: Diamonds on my Grill
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
UFO Bathtub
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Source = The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Michelle Bachmann is at that podium? She got a nice tan. Still empty skull however.
You two are wasting time and space here.
This is obviously Will Smith.
In your alternate reality, yes. In this universe, he’s a great guy doing the best he can in the hardest job in the world against an entrenched opposition that cares more about destroying him than governing the country.
*ding ding ding ding*
I hate that you’re right. :/
There are two trenches and Obama is just as firmly entrenched as any Republican. Don’t forget that.
Actually, if you look at the huge compromises in the healthcare reform act, extending the Bush tax cuts, the acceptance of budget cuts for a simple debt ceiling increase, I’d have to say there is really only one side that compromises in good faith with the welfare of the American people in mind. And it’s not the Republicans, whose stated number one priority is to discredit and hobble the President of The United States.
The compromises on the health care bill were done with the intent of getting their own people to vote for it, not Republicans. They knew they weren’t going to get Republicans to vote for it, but they had to make massive changes just to get their fellow Democrats on board. Locking Republicans out of meetings is not something that you do if you are really interested in compromise. You are smart enough to know that, yet you are supporting one party over the other even to the extent that you are willing to lie for them.
Indeed. Please cite where you got:
” And it’s not the Republicans, whose stated number one priority is to discredit and hobble the President of The United States.”
Not that I support all republicans. But number one priority? Perhaps their number one priority is to tape the constitution back together and prevent our collapse….and the effect of that number one goal = show where Obama is illegally manuvering, lying and try to hinder his progress in those endeavors?
Its all about semantics…or is it?
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
– Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), in an interview with the National Journal in October 2010.
seem like you answered libertys question. yep.
bush did more to harm this country and constitution with just the patriot act so shut up
In the recent debt debate, Obama repeatedly said there had to be increased revenues. He compromised that away. He agreed to budget cuts many Democrats hated, and was blasted by the left (For an example, see Jon Stewart.) Read some people on the progressive left, and you’ll see they’re really annoyed and threatening not to back him next year. He has compromised, and many say too much, just as many Tea Partiers feel Boehner compromised too much.
Increased revenues means higher taxes, how is that a compromise? Cutting spending would be the compromise part, and obviously since both sides compromised neither one can claim a victory on compromise. As I said before, the Republican Party is no more firmly entrenched than the Democrat Party. As demonstrated by the progressive Democrats who are threatening to not support him for re-election. Also, I really don’t care what Obama says. What he does is what I pay attention to.
@Increased revenues means higher taxes, how is that a compromise?
Which, in and of itself, is a misnomer. Increasing taxes does not increase revenue…not nearly as much as lower taxes.
“Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.” Barack Hussein Obama um um ummmmmm
The CBO, which is non-partisan and used by both parties, looked into it and says that only a 28% of the lost tax revenue on a 10% cut (say, 25% down to 22.5%) is given back by a stronger economy. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10PercentTaxCut.pdf
Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.
And yet…
History proves you and your “experts” wrong.
Hard to say. If you look at the curves in the long run, they go up and down, up and down compared to GDP, almost regardless of what the government does. Revenues were highest (barely) under Clinton (great economy until the end). definitely dips at first with Bush’s tax cuts, and then rises to near-record levels, then crashes with the recession, and is now back to about normal, despite the tax cuts. But there’s also no question they were at their highest during World War II, when government spending and taxes were high.
So it’s probably a lot more complex than both sides claim. The CBO is a good bunch, though. It’s tough to find better.
History proves that tax cuts decrease revenues and increase the unemployment rate. What Archer is referring to is the lauffer curve, which Reagan proved wrong. By the way Archer who was it that said the deficits and deficit spending don’t matter?
higher taxes? like higher than 15% like mitt romney pays and then he doesnt even want to pay that so he hides money in the caymen islands…there is a source of new revenue that wouldnt hurt joe the plumber
compromises in the healthcare reform act? the democrats swindled the thing into a simple majority vote through reconciliation by claiming it was a budgetary issue… this was exclusively done in order to avoid compromise. srsly?
THERE WERE NO CUTS!!!!!!!!
Congratulations. You’re right. Sh*t.
That’s about all he has to campaign on now. That won’t go well for him.
Right, we need the a**holes to take over. Then things will get better.
well the real @$$holes are in charge of the whitehouse and the senate and look how great things have gotten… it was nirvana when they ran the house too, right nailin?
19% real unemployment, how’s that “hope and change” working out for you ?
i wish we had all republican house senate and president like we did for 6 of Georges 8 years cause that really set the country on a great path. bush and cheney deserve to be on mount rushmore cause they were so….. whats the word?? WONDERFUL. Nope thats not it
Rabble! Rabble! Rabble! Communism! Left Wing is the Devil! Rabble!!!!!
Tea party! Tea party! Fascism! They’re gonna steal your meds!
The teabaggers need meds.
What are you talking about?
Teabaggers need Straight Jackets.
rabble rabble rabble! teabaggers stupid, rabble!
Rabble! Rabble! Ignore that Obama has spent more than all past Presidents combined! Rabble!
Nice try! Unfortunately for the libertards/TeaTerrorists/NeoCon the facts don’t support their LIES
Starting with Obama’s initiatives, the Stimulus Bill “cost” $863 Billion”.
I place the word “cost” in quotations because the Stimulus Bill consisted of two parts: Spending ($550 Billion) and Tax Cuts ($288 Billion), which means that there was both money going out of the Treasury and money prevented from coming in, both of which make our deficits worse.
The Health Care Bill cost $940 Billion.
So, all together, the Obama initiatives (setting aside the residuals of War) equal: $1.413 Trillion in payments out of the Treasury and $288 Billion in reductions in revenues. That brings the total “cost” of Obama’s initiatives to: $1.701 Trillion.
Turning to Bush’s initiatives, the Prescription Drug Bill cost $1.2 Trillion.
The Bush tax cuts cost $2.485 Trillion, including $344 Billion in interest paid to holders of our debt, including China.
Again, setting aside the cost of war and supporting our veterans into the future (estimated at $3 Trillion, the total cost of Bush’s initiatives was: $1.544 Trillion in payments out and $2.485 Trillion in reductions in revenue. That brings the total “cost” of Bush’s initiatives to: $4.029 Trillion.
To recap, that gives us:
Obama:
Payments Out: $1.413 Trillion
Revenue Cuts: $288 Billion
Total Cost of Initiatives: $1.701 Trillion
Bush:
Payments Out: $1.544 Trillion — Greater than Obama
Revenue Cuts: $2.485 Trillion — Greater than Obama
Total Cost of Initiatives: $4.029 Trillion — Greater than Obama
Woops. Sorry, I didn’t check that. My mistake. It’s just that is PO’s me when these people just start calling names and everything.
Bush wasn’t that great, but Obama sure as hell hasn’t helped.
how do you know he hasnt helped? He was handed the reins of power when the financial industry was shutting down the recession/ depression was under way two wars were under way.. total chaos the man deserves a medal for sticking it out and not giving up
good job can i copy and paste?
yeah and the dems were in power from 2008 until 2010
But not enough in power to stop Republican filibusters from impeding all of their efforts.
Course it’d have been a *little* different if they’d actually MADE them filibuster instead of just saying “Oh you’ll filibuster that? Never mind then, we’ll just drop it because we’re utter failures at what we were elected to do.”
I”m not sure how that would be so different. And didn’t they actually use the filibuster a record number of times?
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm
Thanks. I probably say a statistic that went only up through the 60′s. The filibuster was definitely only used in extreme cases up until then.
Still a filibuster only lasts as long as the person can keep talking. I think the longest ever was something like 24 hours.
Done by DEMOCRAT Ted Kennedy to BLOCK the civil rights bill put forth by republicans.
Cite please. Can’t find any evidence he filibustered any civil rights. Southern Democrats did, for sure.
Wrong Democrat. It was Strom Thurmond who did the 24 hour filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act. He was run out of the Democratic party afterwards and was welcomed into the Republiklan party.
Thurmond was not the only lawmaker to filibuster on the issue, however. According to Senate records, teams of senators consumed 57 days filibustering between March 26 and June 19, the day the Civil Rights Act of 1957 passed.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/tp/Five-Longest-Filibusters.htm
But not one of those was Ted Kennedy. He didn’t even get elected to the Senate until 1962.
Guffaw, leave it to Archer to “misremember” something like that.
If you knew that off the top of your head:
1) you’re a politician
2) really old
3) or you’re lying and looked it up on Google like everyone else.
4) Not an idiot teabagger.
good job
Actually, it was by Strom Thurmond, and while he was a Democrat at the time, he later (in 1964) switched to the Republican party, in support of Barry Goldwater (a Republican), because he agreed with Goldwater that the Civil Rights Act was a bad idea.
I sometimes want to ask, “Archer, who told you that? And why didn’t you check it?”
Can anyone find his grandmother’s biscuit recipe? I bet it’s delicious.
Correction it was Byrd. Whom Clinton said became a clansman for “us”.
Cite please, that makes no sense in my universe. Clinton said Byrd made a mistake and spent the rest of his life making up for it.
“”I’ll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollers of West Virginia, he was trying to get elected.”
So he did it to get elected, did to serve the people, did it for us. It’s out fault.
So he joined the clan, became a kleagle and exalted cyclops.
Lets read, shall we a statement by this heroic figure in the democrat party on race:
“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.” Bob Byrd
Then years later, I heard an interview with him where he said of his time in the 80′s that it was then ‘he realized that “blacks” must care about their kids too’ i.e. like white folks.
Maybe he regretted his klan membership, but still carried his ethnic hatred with him years afterward and into the democrat party which is where he found a perfect home.
60 seats was not enough? If you can’t hold your own caucus together, than you have bigger problems then dem debil republikans.
No, after Scott Brown they didn’t have enough seats to stop a filibuster.
Not incidentally, the Republicans are breaking a long-standing gentlemen’s agreement in Congress not to use the filibuster as a generally obstructive tool. In the past the average was about one a year. If the Democrats do the same thing the next time they are in a Senate minority, it will be interesting to see the Republicans’ reactions.
Hasn’t been ‘about one a year’ since the early 60′s, according to what I linked above. Definitely a sharp increase since 2007 though.
Yeah, the Democrats should do a great job holding their caucus together, the way Boehner controlled the Republicans in the House recently.
That is what Congressional leaders are selected to do. The Speaker, the Whip, and the Committee Leaders are all chosen for one reason, to get votes. If a party member doesn’t want to go with the rest of the party, the leaders go get them.
if the dems do it next time there is a gop majority, there will be a massive campaign by the right calling them out on it. they will have a campaign about the senators that aren’t doing their job. it’ll be a huge political tool to try to gain more seats at the next election.
you know, like the dems should be doing, but aren’t.
Yeah, they haven’t gotten that message out with Obama dedicating at least half of every speech he’s delivered since his inauguration to blaming Republicans for his legislative and policy failures.
More than just a little exaggeration – did you research it?
Exaggeration, sure. Unfounded, no.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/obama-gop-filibustering-recovery-.html
“Too often, the Republican leadership in the United States Senate chooses to filibuster our recovery and obstruct our progress,” the president said in his weekly address.
“That has very real consequences,” he warned.
Frequency of the complaint aside, isn’t that about true?
That wasn’t the question.
OK, then the question is frequency. I didn’t call it false, just really exaggerated. Any President gives tons of speeches that have nothing to do with legislative difficulties. There’s no way that “more than half of every speech” is correct.
I already agreed that it was exaggerated.
However, “like the dems should be doing, but aren’t.” is just as false.
“There is nothing wrong with our country. There is something wrong with our politics,” Obama declared to applause.
Pelosi said in a statement, “This is simply the latest example of Congressional Republicans putting partisan politics ahead of the public well-being.” (remember, the initial assertion was all dems, not just Obama).
Obama: So this is a bill that makes sense, and normally we would expect Democrats and Republicans to join together. Unfortunately, a partisan minority in the Senate so far has refused to allow this jobs bill to come up for a vote.
And the public may be listening. The Tea Party is dropping nationally, and there is a bit of a gap between Democrats in Congress (generically) and Republicans. Also, Boehner’s numbers are apparently only about 3% higher than Pelosi’s now.
But if Obama wants to run against the “Party of No”, he’d better get some big-deal concrete plans out there that sound good to independent voters.
“blaming Republicans for his legislative and policy failures.”
while being blamed for the effects of republican failures…
being criticized as “not leading” when actively seeking gop support for plans and getting filibusters in record numbers in reply…
being called a communist after dropping the government-run healthcare from his proposal as a measure of compromise with the right…
being criticized for his ineloquence by people who make up their own facts and commit the same level of blunders…
being called a muslim after defending the first amendment for more than just rabid fundamentalist conservatives…
i can go on.
as much as i’m of the mind that his presidency has been a large disappointment, it’s been about damage control instead of getting new stuff done. with the level of oppositional defiant behavior on the gop side, no non-gop president would have been able to get anything done. now he’s calling them on it, because until they change, they can’t get anything done.
the message is getting old. but it makes me slightly angrier at the gop than annoyed at him. this is all kindergarten-level crap.
They’ll conveniently Ignore how many times they used it, and blame Democrats for breaking the Gentleman’s Agreement. I swear they’re like spoiled children.
Actually, until Scott Brown was elected in the MA special election, the Democrats had filibuster-proof majorities in both houses.
… and spent time trying to get bipartisan support for the major bills they were pushing, especially the healthcare bill. the desire to bridge the political gap when they were in power made them less effective getting anything done, since all the gop had to do is resist and make politics more partisan.
yet the healthcare bill (and others) was “rammed down people’s throats,” obama “has made the partisan politics worse,” the democrats “abused their power,” the voters (even those who voted for candidates running on relevant issues ) “didn’t want that kind of plan” happening, and the dems “don’t know how to compromise” …
that’s what the official gop party line is… that everything’s the dems’ faults, and they have been fighting the good fight. throw hints of coldwar paranoia (ZOMG communism!) in there, have blowhards preaching fear-filled conspiracy theories, and make the other guy look like they are playing the blame game when you yourself are doing the same.
bush lost the popular vote and gained the presidency amidst sketchy circumstances in the state his brother governed, yet he declared that he had a mandate. obama won in the biggest landslide in nearly three decades, the dems made record gains in congressional seats, and yet the dems tried to (and often did) get bipartisan support for bills that were less leftist than many of their moderate supporters wanted.
I’m sorry, but I distinctly remember the first year after the ’08 elections the Democrats barely gave the Republicans the time of day on “bipartisan” agreements.
Exactly, excluding them from budget talks, the obamacare “debates”. Madame Pelosi didn’t want them to see that obamacare was pulled from reid’s desk drawer where it sat since the kennedy days.
Hence the audacity of her statement to ‘just pass it to see what’s in it.” I was like “no you idiot, it’s your job to read it, tell us why we should support it then do what we say.” But no, that’s just too passe’ now.
You once again misremember. The healthcare legislation had Republicans involved every step of the way, to the point the Congress had Republicans submit entire versions of the legislation themselves, which were then guided through the entire process, through committees and out onto the floors of Congress, where every Republican then voted against the measures they themselves had just submitted. And they did this over, and over, and over again.
I’d be interested on citations on that. Pretty please?
Woof, not easy to find. At this point I do want to say I followed this legislation every step of the way and I’m not talking out of my ass, but since I did say that I will totally try to find an article on it and hopefully not from leftwingcommienutball.com.
Things that don’t exist, are often very difficult to find…
haha it’s funny because at this point, that’s pretty much his only excuse/reason we should re-elect him
That is pretty much the only excuse/reason we ever have to elect/re-elect any politician.
Exactly, which is why I personally think it should only be one term for Presidents.
That isn’t long enough for anyone to make a positive difference.
I see your point, which is valid, but I think it would be better for a President to not spend time worrying about reelection.
That’s not a newsflash.
That’s common knowledge.
Right, cause 2 years with super majority weren’t enough time to get a budget finished…..
The “other” guys that are @$$Holes in that situation were? Oh…other Democrats? Not liberal enough for ya there BHO?
they were all a-holes. gop and dem alike.
i’m of the mind that the gop were bigger ones, you’re of the mind that the dems were bigger ones. i hope we can at least agree that the problem is politicians, not just one side.
One year. Scott Brown was sworn in in February 2010.
Supposed to do a budget every year? so one year shoulda been plenty to get that done.
Scott didn’t end up being that helpful, if I recall correctly.
Well, he allowed the Republicans to filibuster a lot of stuff that Obama wanted to do. At the time, they boasted that they were preventing Obama from carrying out his [socialist?] agenda.
That would make a whole lot of sense if it weren’t for the fact that Obama’s signature legislation – the health car reform law – was passed after Scott Brown was elected and that it was the Democratic senate that refused to vote on the budget he proposed.
The Health Care Act was passed through the Reconciliation Process, which did not require 60 votes.
The Budget? After Obama submitted a budget with 1.1 trillion in cuts (however illusory), he then suggested a new plan which would $4 trillion in cuts. (Again, we’re talking politicians here. I’m not confident any of the debt deals will have that much in real cutting.) So the Dems said, “We’ll wait for the new plan,” but McConnell insisted on a vote anyway. Both sides do some showboating, and hat was McConnell’s.
@The Health Care Act was passed through the Reconciliation Process, which did not require 60 votes.
Which in and of itself was a bastardization of senate rules. Those are reserved for budget battles not major pieces of legislation. Ergo, one can ask, if obamacare was so great, why all the secrecy, smoke and mirrors and outright lying to pass it?
@The Budget? After Obama submitted a budget with 1.1 trillion in cuts (however illusory),
A popular lie. Obama’s budget didn’t even any democrats to vote for it.
AS for the cuts, it was all military.
@So the Dems said, “We’ll wait for the new plan,” but McConnell insisted on a vote anyway. Both sides do some showboating, and hat was McConnell’s.
Ah more formeraide BS.
Reid is the senate majority leader it is his responsibility to bring a budget to vote by the law. Since he’s a democrat laws are more like guidelines which can be ignore…for more than 800 days.
LOL.
Not enough comments..
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz to other CEOs
“I am asking that all of us forego political contributions until the Congress and the President return to Washington and deliver a fiscally disciplined long-term debt and deficit plan to the American people”
Thoughts?
That won’t happen.
Only liberal Democrats and hippies drink Starbucks.
You’re thinking of Kool Aid
And the teabaggers drink the liquid that is produced after that.
Having the White House and both houses of Congress, he still couldn’t get his hope-y change-y stuff to work, but now that the “other guys” have one half of one third of the Federal government, they’re assholes and he still can’t get his hope-y change-y stuff to work. And spare me this filibuster noise. You can’t filibuster in the House and the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The problem isn’t the Republicans or the Tea Party. The problem is that Keynesianism (especially the truncated version filtered through Marxism) is a flawed economic system. But keep up the name calling and the talking points quoting, guys. That’ll fix things.
Again, he only had the supermajority in the Senate for one year.
And how will you respond if the Democrats say, “Sorry, you need 60 guys to pass anything from now on?”
Uhhh, welcome to 1972, I guess?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/22/joe-biden/biden-says-every-senate-decision-now-requires-60-v/
While that does give some background, that’s not an example of a Democrat threatening to be obstructive.
You’re right, “anything” is an exaggeration. “Anything major” is correct.
From your link: “As we like to say at PolitiFact, words matter; if Biden had said every ‘major’ decision requires 60 votes, he would have been on more solid ground.”
There is no partisan precedent for the Republicans in American history.
Yeah. And during that year, what did he do? He peddled a PoS health “reform” act that is probably going to get shot down in SCOTUS review. While ignoring the things that actually needed to get done.
Health care is eating over 15% of our total GDP, more than any other developed country. 62% of personal bankruptcies in the US were caused by health problems, up from 8% in 1981. Three-quarters of those filing for bankruptcy had insurance, mostly private insurance.
By comparison, health is only cited by 13% in Canada, mostly due to lost income. With national health insurance, it’s pretty much impossible to go broke due to medical costs.
You are a Birther – therefore anything else you may have to say is suspect.
What? How do you get birther? Keynesianism didn’t come from Kenya you know.
D’oh. Laughing in the office ftl.
This could be one for failbook.
failblog that is.
Truer words have never been spoken.
Only true in your tiny little relity bubble of Party loyalty. Help the country: die.
That’s only true in your tiny little brain.
I wish *all* you Party loyalists would collectively just fall on your swords. *YOU* are the ones at fault for this mess by voting the same sociopaths back into office over and over because your tiny, manure filled minds can only see demons and angels and nothing in between. Seriously, PLEASE KILL YOURSELVES!
A thousand times THIS. Things have been going downhill for some time now, yet every time an election comes around, someone on “your team” makes another promise he/she can’t (read: won’t) keep, and you guys pull the trigger on the same useless idiots time and time again. You truly get the government you deserve.
“I thought I could, but it turns out the president in the United States of American isn’t a monarch and I can’t just make everybody do what I say. Waaaawaaaaawaaaaaa”
He thought he could but it turned out he was pathetic.
Teabaggers: All the name-calling ability of a five year old, but not as smart.
So… you’re a teabagger?
^This times 9001. And yes, that is over 9000.
The problem isn’t whichever party is full of a**holes, the problem is that the parties exist.
Maybe the problem is that we need campaign spending reform so they aren’t so beholden to special interests.
When McConnell says that “our highest priority is making Obama a one-term president” and not, for instance, good governance or even halfway-decent governance that should tell you something.
Thank you, Party of No.
Coming from the party who can’t say no to outdated Keynesian economics.
Keynesian policies that y’know, have worked whenever and wherever anyone has tried them, again and again.
[citation needed]
and when they fail its because we didnt throw enough of other people’s money at them! It has to be bigger in order to work… if the whole world was redistributing the wealth we’d all be fine I swear!
apparently you cant use fake html tags… so [/sarcasm]
Blah blah blah, Politics, BLAH!
Obama is Hitler, The democrats a communists, the republicans a communists.
That about sums up the political knowledge of the internet right?
I honestly hate all politicians
Then you are definitely in the wrong part of I Can Has Cheezburger.
Honestly, at what point are all problems not everyone else’s fault?
They’re politicians, Obama. This should not be surprising.
Yeah its never his fault is it?