Home› A Moving Train

DEMS SAY, "F*CK OBAMA!!"

Best of TimesBest of Times Posts: 296
edited December 2010 in A Moving Train
http://www.rollcall.com/news/-201347-1.html

Dem Lawmaker says, "Fuck the President!" on the House floor.

Uh-Oh. Now it's getting ugly.....
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1345

Comments

  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    that is what happens when you are a pussy who refuses to fight for what you know is right, you alienate your base and your own party, you criticize those on "the professional left" that worked to get you elected, and you sell out the american people whom you promised to help. there is only so much that his supporters will accept, and now he is in a world of trouble.

    he accepted this "compromise" with no fight at all, and he conceded way too much to the republicans. as a result, his own party is extremely angry at him.

    he let this blow up in his face by his own doing.

    i still say he should have a "come to jesus"moment, pull an LBJ, and say he is not running again.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Best of TimesBest of Times Posts: 296
    edited December 2010
    I agree with you.

    1. He sold out the American people
    2. He let it blow up in his own face- his doing
    3. He is in a world of trouble
    4. He is a pussy
    5. I hope he doesn't run in 2012 also.

    Well said, Gimme.
    Post edited by Best of Times on
  • Electric_DeltaElectric_Delta Posts: 977
    Best of Times wrote:
    I agree with you.

    1. He sold out the American people
    2. He let it blow up in his own face- his doing
    3. He is in a world of trouble
    4. He is a pussy
    5. I hope he doesn't run in 2010 also.

    Well said, Gimme.
    :lol::lol::lol:
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    He seemed so senseable in the beginning.
  • Best of TimesBest of Times Posts: 296
    In the beginning.... there was sensible Obama.
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    BinauralJam wrote:
    He seemed so senseable in the beginning.

    I'd like to see anyone appointed to POTUS and not completely lose sense of self.

    I bet it's not possible.

    And I really want to know what Republicans are blackmailing him with.
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    dammit, i knew i misspelled sensible. treid with and e and then an a, nothing looked right.

    I really do wonder if after your elected , they sit you down and tell you ALL of the shit they've been keeping from the public, fill you head with so much Info, that what ever goals you had coming in are forgotten and you just end up doing what they want you to do.
  • Best of TimesBest of Times Posts: 296
    BLACK-mailing?

    That's racist!!

    :o:D:lol:
  • Best of TimesBest of Times Posts: 296
    I type the words Im not sure about into a Word doc- then I use spellcheck before i type in a post so people think I'm really that smart!!

    ;):mrgreen:
  • sabreleafsabreleaf Posts: 310
    And while they fight about not giving the rich the Bush era tax break we will get stuck paying more in taxes. The Republicans have said they will not sign on for the tax break for the rest of Americans if the rich get taxed more. It's the top 1% they are protecting.
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    I think I said earlier on in this obama thing that I had a gut feeling about him but granted I wasn't sure of what but I did say he was softer than a sneaker full of shit.
    honestly I would like to see him do what is right for the American people and if he does that I wouldn't mind seeing him in for a 2nd term,we just don't know at this point although it ain't looking too good.

    Godfather.
  • Best of TimesBest of Times Posts: 296
    Because the top 2% are the ones who create jobs.

    Jobs: nice to have.

    Godfather: a 2nd term? Really? Say it ain't so....
    :o
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    Best of Times wrote:
    Because the top 2% are the ones who create jobs.

    Jobs: nice to have.

    Godfather: a 2nd term? Really? Say it ain't so....
    :o

    you all know how I have always felt about nobama but in the best interest of our country "IF" he was to turn around and shape things up wouldn't it be good to give him another term.......crap I can't believe I just posted/ said that out loud :shock: :lol:

    Godfather.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    Best of Times wrote:
    Because the top 2% are the ones who create jobs.

    Jobs: nice to have.

    Godfather: a 2nd term? Really? Say it ain't so....
    :o
    we have debated the rich creating jobs here for months. the fact is they have not created jobs with those tax cuts for the last several years. if they had, where are the jobs???? if they had, the unemployment would be less than what it is.

    i am not 100% certain on this, but according to a usa today article from a couple of weeks ago, do you know how much a family making $500,000 would have to pay extra a year if the cuts expire?

    $700...that is $58.33 a month in extra taxes...

    but i am done debating that issue and i am not going to talk about it anymore. i have said my peace in the other threads about that.


    the fact is that obama caved again, waaay too easily, and people are not going to stand for it. and it is inexcusable to have the gop protecting the top 2% of earners. they are protecting their base and nothing else, and in the process allowing cuts to expire for the people who really need those cuts. shameful....
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Best of TimesBest of Times Posts: 296
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Best of Times wrote:
    Because the top 2% are the ones who create jobs.

    Jobs: nice to have.

    Godfather: a 2nd term? Really? Say it ain't so....
    :o
    we have debated the rich creating jobs here for months. the fact is they have not created jobs with those tax cuts for the last several years. if they had, where are the jobs???? if they had, the unemployment would be less than what it is.

    do you know how much a family making $500,000 would have to pay extra a year if the cuts expire?

    $700...that is $58.33 a month in taxes...

    but i am done debating that issue and i am not going to talk about it anymore. i have said my peace in the other threads about that.


    the fact is that obama caved again, waaay too easily, and people are not going to stand for it. and it is inexcusable to have the gop protecting the top 2% of earners. they are protecting their base and nothing else, and in the process allowing cuts to expire for the people who really need those cuts. shameful....

    WHO are you refferring to when you say "allowing cuts to expire for the people who really need those cuts"?

    A simple question Gimme: Why does the gov't tax people? I'll kinldy wait for your response.
    :roll:
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    Best of Times wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Best of Times wrote:
    Because the top 2% are the ones who create jobs.

    Jobs: nice to have.

    Godfather: a 2nd term? Really? Say it ain't so....
    :o
    we have debated the rich creating jobs here for months. the fact is they have not created jobs with those tax cuts for the last several years. if they had, where are the jobs???? if they had, the unemployment would be less than what it is.

    do you know how much a family making $500,000 would have to pay extra a year if the cuts expire?

    $700...that is $58.33 a month in taxes...

    but i am done debating that issue and i am not going to talk about it anymore. i have said my peace in the other threads about that.


    the fact is that obama caved again, waaay too easily, and people are not going to stand for it. and it is inexcusable to have the gop protecting the top 2% of earners. they are protecting their base and nothing else, and in the process allowing cuts to expire for the people who really need those cuts. shameful....

    WHO are you refferring to when you say "allowing cuts to expire for the people who really need those cuts"?

    A simple question Gimme: Why does the gov't tax people? I'll kinldy wait for your response.
    :roll:

    really...why does the gov't tax people...? really...? you're really asking that question...?

    :lol::lol::lol:

    :cry:
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    Best of Times wrote:
    Because the top 2% are the ones who create jobs.

    Jobs: nice to have.

    Godfather: a 2nd term? Really? Say it ain't so....
    :o

    the tax cuts have been in place for 10 years...where are the jobs...?
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    and one more thing...I do find it interesting that those who support extending tax cuts for the rich are slamming Obama for supporting it...

    damned if he does and damned if he doesn't....I would think you lovers-of-the-wealthy would be supportive...yet you only take shit...

    there is no pleasing you guys...
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    we have debated the rich creating jobs here for months. the fact is they have not created jobs with those tax cuts for the last several years. if they had, where are the jobs???? if they had, the unemployment would be less than what it is.


    if you look at job growth from 2004 (after the 9/11 debacle in the economy) to right before the housing bubble burst jobs were available and most people who wanted one had one, however when the economy goes in the shitter jobs follow quickly. Rich people do create jobs, but they don't do it over night, businesses need to stay alive so that when things turn around they can hire again. I don't understand the idea that jobs are going to come back by taking more money out of the private sector.

    that being said, I am glad obama compromised, it shows he has a level head on his shoulders. You cannot always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you get what you need. The dems needed to extend unemployment, the gop needed tax cuts for all...seems fair to me. I really don't understand the outrage.

    I guess there is a lot I don't understand
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • Best of TimesBest of Times Posts: 296
    In My Tree:

    It wasn't rhetorical. There was a point to be made, and it applies to your job question: The tax cuts were passed in '01 and '03. A small tax cut cannot save an economy that is hindered by an administration that has spent more money in 2 years than the entire US spent from 1789-1980.

    The question regarding why a gov't taxes, strikes at the heart of our constitutional rights against overreaching gov't.

    If they didn't spend our money faster than crackheads, we wouldn't be sitting here acting like this is there money, and we're lucky if they let us keep any of it. Think about it. They've already spent the money they're debating letting the "rich" people keep. Nancy Pelosi had a $50,000/year alchohol bill as Speaker- and that was just on her free "Air Force Airliner." 50K/year on airplne booze!!!! And then tells you she's for the little guy and you believe her....

    Gov't FOR the people.

    NOT people for the gov't.

    This is the fundamental phiosphical difference b/w Liberalism and Conservatism.
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    Best of Times wrote:
    In My Tree:

    It wasn't rhetorical. There was a point to be made, and it applies to your job question: The tax cuts were passed in '01 and '03. A small tax cut cannot save an economy that is hindered by an administration that has spent more money in 2 years than the entire US spent from 1789-1980.

    The question regarding why a gov't taxes, strikes at the heart of our constitutional rights against overreaching gov't.

    If they didn't spend our money faster than crackheads, we wouldn't be sitting here acting like this is there money, and we're lucky if they let us keep any of it. Think about it. They've already spent the money they're debating letting the "rich" people keep. Nancy Pelosi had a $50,000/year alchohol bill as Speaker- and that was just on her free "Air Force Airliner." 50K/year on airplne booze!!!! And then tells you she's for the little guy and you believe her....

    Gov't FOR the people.

    NOT people for the gov't.

    This is the fundamental phiosphical difference b/w Liberalism and Conservatism.

    um, the tax cuts for the "job makers" were in place for 10 years...um, no jobs...

    and I love the Pelosi thing, let explore that....Pelosi has a big booze bill = billionaires need more money...

    you got me there... :lol:
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    Best of Times wrote:
    WHO are you refferring to when you say "allowing cuts to expire for the people who really need those cuts"?

    A simple question Gimme: Why does the gov't tax people? I'll kinldy wait for your response.
    :roll:
    i am saying that the poor and middle classes need those tax cuts. they are the ones who make less money, yet have to buy the same things like gasoline,groceries, electricity, natural gas and utilities, medical care/health insurance premiums and deductables, all of which are not cheep by most people's standards. percentage wise besides house and car payments, food is the next highest expense. to rich people that expense is negligible because they have a lot more money and can buy it and have tons of money left over.. but if you take that same cost and apply it to someone making $40,000, that is a significantly higher dollar amount that hits those families. to let tax cuts expire and hit them with that increased burden is criminal. to rich people, it will not affect them so much when having to purchase the necessities of life.

    and are you serious? if you do not know why governments tax people, i would have to assume you are joking...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Electric_DeltaElectric_Delta Posts: 977
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Best of Times wrote:
    WHO are you refferring to when you say "allowing cuts to expire for the people who really need those cuts"?

    A simple question Gimme: Why does the gov't tax people? I'll kinldy wait for your response.
    :roll:
    i am saying that the poor and middle classes need those tax cuts. they are the ones who make less money, yet have to buy the same things like gasoline,groceries, electricity, natural gas and utilities, medical care/health insurance premiums and deductables, all of which are not cheep by most people's standards. percentage wise besides house and car payments, food is the next highest expense. to rich people that expense is negligible because they have a lot more money and can buy it and have tons of money left over.. but if you take that same cost and apply it to someone making $40,000, that is a significantly higher dollar amount that hits those families. to let tax cuts expire and hit them with that increased burden is criminal. to rich people, it will not affect them so much when having to purchase the necessities of life.

    and are you serious? if you do not know why governments tax people, i would have to assume you are joking...

    Those "rich" people you keep referring to had to have taken some risk to earn their place. Why do we continue to demonize those who have worked hard and earned their fortunes? Not everyone is Bernie Madoff.

    Demonizing every successful person comes off a little too Bolshevik.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Best of Times wrote:
    WHO are you refferring to when you say "allowing cuts to expire for the people who really need those cuts"?

    A simple question Gimme: Why does the gov't tax people? I'll kinldy wait for your response.
    :roll:
    i am saying that the poor and middle classes need those tax cuts. they are the ones who make less money, yet have to buy the same things like gasoline,groceries, electricity, natural gas and utilities, medical care/health insurance premiums and deductables, all of which are not cheep by most people's standards. percentage wise besides house and car payments, food is the next highest expense. to rich people that expense is negligible because they have a lot more money and can buy it and have tons of money left over.. but if you take that same cost and apply it to someone making $40,000, that is a significantly higher dollar amount that hits those families. to let tax cuts expire and hit them with that increased burden is criminal. to rich people, it will not affect them so much when having to purchase the necessities of life.

    and are you serious? if you do not know why governments tax people, i would have to assume you are joking...

    Those "rich" people you keep referring to had to have taken some risk to earn their place. Why do we continue to demonize those who have worked hard and earned their fortunes? Not everyone is Bernie Madoff.

    Demonizing every successful person comes off a little too Bolshevik.


    who's demonizing them...?
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    Those "rich" people you keep referring to had to have taken some risk to earn their place. Why do we continue to demonize those who have worked hard and earned their fortunes? Not everyone is Bernie Madoff.

    Demonizing every successful person comes off a little too Bolshevik.
    who risks more, bill gates, or the man who is working in a mine for $30,000 a year? how about the professional athlete, or the marine stationed in afghanistan? who risks more? what about the CEO, who risks more, the CEO, or the cop who is paid peanuts to work security for him?

    i am not demonizing anyone. we all know that the "rich create the jobs" line is a lie.
    are you telling me that paris hilton worked for her fortune and she deserves a tax break? how about he kardashians?

    you have your opinion, i have mine.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    Those "rich" people you keep referring to had to have taken some risk to earn their place. Why do we continue to demonize those who have worked hard and earned their fortunes? Not everyone is Bernie Madoff.

    Demonizing every successful person comes off a little too Bolshevik.
    who risks more, bill gates, or the man who is working in a mine for $30,000 a year? how about the professional athlete, or the marine stationed in afghanistan? who risks more? what about the CEO, who risks more, the CEO, or the cop who is paid peanuts to work security for him?

    i am not demonizing anyone. we all know that the "rich create the jobs" line is a lie.
    are you telling me that paris hilton worked for her fortune and she deserves a tax break? how about he kardashians?

    you have your opinion, i have mine.

    don't take the bait on the demonizing thing...that's there shtick...toss out shit to get you off track...no one is demonizing anyone...but the right loves to play the victim, which leads the discussion off track...
  • Electric_DeltaElectric_Delta Posts: 977
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    Those "rich" people you keep referring to had to have taken some risk to earn their place. Why do we continue to demonize those who have worked hard and earned their fortunes? Not everyone is Bernie Madoff.

    Demonizing every successful person comes off a little too Bolshevik.
    who risks more, bill gates, or the man who is working in a mine for $30,000 a year? how about the professional athlete, or the marine stationed in afghanistan? who risks more? what about the CEO, who risks more, the CEO, or the cop who is paid peanuts to work security for him?

    i am not demonizing anyone. we all know that the "rich create the jobs" line is a lie.
    are you telling me that paris hilton worked for her fortune and she deserves a tax break? how about he kardashians?

    you have your opinion, i have mine.

    You do raise some decent points, but from where I stand, setting these kinds of precedents are dangerous: "This guy has too much. We need to TAKE from him and give to this guy." Thomas Jefferson said the republic will die when you take from those willing to work and give to those who are not.

    Redistribution of wealth is code word for state takeover. Communists mask their hideous intentions behind the friendly mask of social justice.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    Those "rich" people you keep referring to had to have taken some risk to earn their place. Why do we continue to demonize those who have worked hard and earned their fortunes? Not everyone is Bernie Madoff.

    Demonizing every successful person comes off a little too Bolshevik.
    who risks more, bill gates, or the man who is working in a mine for $30,000 a year? how about the professional athlete, or the marine stationed in afghanistan? who risks more? what about the CEO, who risks more, the CEO, or the cop who is paid peanuts to work security for him?

    i am not demonizing anyone. we all know that the "rich create the jobs" line is a lie.
    are you telling me that paris hilton worked for her fortune and she deserves a tax break? how about he kardashians?

    you have your opinion, i have mine.

    You do raise some decent points, but from where I stand, setting these kinds of precedents are dangerous: "This guy has too much. We need to TAKE from him and give to this guy." Thomas Jefferson said the republic will die when you take from those willing to work and give to those who are not.

    Redistribution of wealth is code word for state takeover. Communists mask their hideous intentions behind the friendly mask of social justice.

    How long ago did Tom say that...? I think it's been awhile, and we seem to still be chugging along... :lol:
  • Electric_DeltaElectric_Delta Posts: 977
    inmytree wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    who risks more, bill gates, or the man who is working in a mine for $30,000 a year? how about the professional athlete, or the marine stationed in afghanistan? who risks more? what about the CEO, who risks more, the CEO, or the cop who is paid peanuts to work security for him?

    i am not demonizing anyone. we all know that the "rich create the jobs" line is a lie.
    are you telling me that paris hilton worked for her fortune and she deserves a tax break? how about he kardashians?

    you have your opinion, i have mine.

    don't take the bait on the demonizing thing...that's there shtick...toss out shit to get you off track...no one is demonizing anyone...but the right loves to play the victim, which leads the discussion off track...

    Yeah, the right always plays the victim. That's a good one.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,497
    It funny that people bitch and complain about nothing being done in the government and that representatives are stalling and filibustering, etc...then when there is compromise, everyone bitches that they didn't get their way!!!!!
    hippiemom = goodness
Sign In or Register to comment.