(no subject)

[dandy-dustmite.livejournal.com]

Comments

[homais.livejournal.com]

Well, in any case, paper beats rock.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

LOL!

[filthy-bonnet.livejournal.com]

WIN!

[paradisacorbasi.livejournal.com]

 

[epikaste.livejournal.com]

[torasama.livejournal.com]

LOL win!

Fail

[jasolater.livejournal.com]

Of course, if you put that quote in context, he wasn't talking to the house Republicans at all.

But the Republicans must bow down to the One, because he won, there can be no more dissent, dissent is no longer patriotic.

Re: Fail

[jasolater.livejournal.com]

Yes, he said that, but just like this cartoon takes Obama's words out of context, you do it here as well with Bush's comment.

Re: Fail

[dr-pepper-spray.livejournal.com]

Have you been in a fucking hole for the last eight years?

Re: Fail

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

on the stilulus at least, there appers to be a serten amount of stubborness on the part of the republicans. if i recall correctly, 1/3 or so of it is tax cuts. and not pay roll tax cuts or the like, high level tax cuts. dollar for dollar, its been shown tax cuts are less effective then a short term blitz of spending (as opposed to long term or instutilised spending that will contune). hence the aim for "shovel ready" projects. stuff witch can start fast, and also, finsh. stuff like cannal surveys and flood provention messures instaltion are one time things witch will also improve things emensly. the goverments also spending 200million dollars on funiture, witch is less well looked upon.

in anycase, there dosent apper to be room for comprimise. sept for rush's split it down the votes option. witch is stupid.

Re: Fail

[jasolater.livejournal.com]

Thanks for trying to sell me on Nancy Pelosi's so-called "Stimulus" package.

I wasn't for the last one, nor am I in favor of this one. I'm glad the Republicans are at least holding it up and asking some questions this time.

Other than that, your grammar and bad spelling of words make your response hard to read, but I get what you mean. Just like I understood what Bush was saying even if he was bad at saying it.

I hope this "stimulus" package fails. Maybe with some time and debate, the people in Washington, both parties, can come up with something we can all agree on.

Anyway this cartoon takes Obama's speech (one of the parts that I actually liked and agreed with) out of context, and turns it into just another partisan jab at the folks who disagree.

Re: Fail

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

i would respond to your points, if you left them up...

well, in about 8 hours after uni. but yea. sertenly, i dont think your amis to ask the qustions you asked. to ansere the one that sticks in my head, the money is defiset spending. normal deficet spending is considered bad, but with a kennsian vew of ecomomics, short, sharp deficiet spending and tax cuts (a payroll tax cut seems like it could be sensible in this case) eases and can lift a country out of recesion. further more, at lot of the spending, in addition to being part of the short sharp shock, alot of the spending in the bill is are sorly needed.

spending wont incress drasticly, but rather will be payed off. the issue is that massive deffecit spending by bush means that its a riskyer prospect then it might otherwise have been. but it is a fairly well understood metherd for tackling recession.

Re: Fail

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

I wasn't for the last one, nor am I in favor of this one.

It’s not clear whether you are referring to the TARP or the early 2008 stimulus package, but either way it’s a poor comparison. The TARP isn’t stimulus; the early 2008 package was 1/5 the size of the Obama proposal, and contained nothing but tax cuts.

Re: Fail

[name-omitted.livejournal.com]

Yes, because keeping quotes in context is the essence of good humor.

Re: Fail

[torasama.livejournal.com]

GIP.

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

"I won" sounds like a clenched fist.

[hallyluia.livejournal.com]

yes

[megiloth.livejournal.com]

It's not like he needs the GOP in the House or Senate to get anything passed. He should worry more aboot his own party switching sides as they did in the House. As long as the Democrats don't jump ship, he'll get his little plan passed with or without Republican support. People make it sound like if the GOP doesn't come aboard, bills won't pass. We could give him the finger and it wouldn't matter one bit, unless the Dems vote with the GOP.

[name-omitted.livejournal.com]

He needs 60 votes in the Senate to allow it to come to a vote. It's one of the best protections for minority views we have. Even with the Democratic majority in the Senate, he still needs at least 2 Republicans.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

where's the GOP's rattle? They're the ones behaving like children.

[nacreousflaneur.livejournal.com]

Yes, they are, the same way the Dems did in 2000. "Bush stole the election." "President Select." Remember that? The Elephants don't have a monopoly on throwing tantrums.

And now we have the nutjobs still trying to say Obama was born in Kenya.

Moral of the story: there will always be nutjobs, no matter what side of the fence they're on.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Except that Bush DID steal the election. See, there's a difference between a legitimate issue and an illegitimate one.

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

Do tell how he stole the election

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

Doing a diebold search shows that the machines had problems throughout the country. However, showing that there were more votes cast than voters doesn't say which way the machines malfunctioned. It only shows that they malfunctioned.

dwer needs to show how Bush stole the 2000 election. We're still waiting for that report.

[fleaplus.livejournal.com]

Absentee ballots?

[hallyluia.livejournal.com]

Yes he did.

No he didn't.

Yes he did.

No he didn't.

Old, tired, fodder for trolls.

[nacreousflaneur.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

Still waiting for you to tell us how Bush stole the 2000 election.

[hallyluia.livejournal.com]

Let him dig up copies of the debates we've been using the past 4 years. *yawn*

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

Even if you don't believe that there was direct voter fraud involved in the 2000 election (and there's plenty of (http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html) concrete evidence (http://www.democrats.com/joel-kaplan) to prove some level of shenanigans), it's fact that Bush's election was a rare historical fluke... losing the popular vote, but winning because of the electoral college vote in a state where his brother was the governor and the secretary of state worked for his campaign, and only after a Republican-stacked Supreme Court came down on his side in the recount caused by a ridiculous ballot that had countless Democrats' votes for Gore going to Pat Buchanan instead.

Obama, on the other hand, not only won a solid popular vote majority (even Clinton never broke 50%), but also a huge electoral college majority (http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard) (double McCain's #), winning back numerous states that Democrats hadn't won in a generation... in an election which was overwhelmingly a referendum on economic policy specifically.

Huge difference.

[desidono.livejournal.com]

This.