Top 5 Obama lies of 2009
rafiki
I seem to recall reading somewhere that people like to read list-based
articles when they browse the web. There are several reasons: the
headline reassuringly promises what the article contains; lists can be
read quickly; it's fun to argue about lists; it's fun to think about
what you'd put on the list. They're easy on the reader, and easy on
the writer. Everybody wins.
With that in mind, I've put together my top five lies of President
Barack Obama of 2009. I'll make the disclaimer that Obama's lies
aren't really much worse than you'd expect from a powerful elected
official from Chicago, and there's a chance that when he told them he
wasn't being willfully deceptive per se. On the other hand, what's he
done lately to earn the benefit of doubt?
The story so far…
(Note: Not all lies below were told during 2009. Some were promises
made previously that were broken in 2009. So, you know, FYI, that's
the standard I'm operating under here. Like I said, easy on the
writer.)
5. "When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you
will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I
sign it."
Now that he's been president for a year, it's funny to reminisce about
candidate Obama's high ideals. Apparently, at one point, this Obama
fellow just tossed out this "I'll put bills online before I sign them"
line on a whim. He must have thought it sounded good at the time, but
I can't imagine he ever intended to keep it. It's one of those pie-in-
sky platitudes politicians toss out because they don't expect anyone
to hold them to it.
So let's have a laugh and hold him to it. The first major legislation
executed by the Chief Executive was the so-called stimulus act in
February. With a price tag of $787 billion, and at a length of over
400 pages, this was precisely the type of bill worthy of five days of
public scrutiny. As it happened, Congress passed the bill late on a
Friday, and Obama signed it on a Tuesday. It's nice they gave us the
weekend to work on it, but would it have been too much to delay
signing it for a few more days, just to keep up appearances? The
infamous healthcare reform bill that just passed Congress is a couple
thousand pages long. Does anyone believe the public will have
sufficient time to scrutinize the final version before Obama puts his
autograph on it? In the internet age, there's no excuse for a
government not to put bills online and allow people enough time to
read them.
4. "I will not sign a [healthcare reform] plan that adds one dime to
our deficits -- either now or in the future. I will not sign it if it
adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period."
He says it twice, as if to taunt us. The purported cost of the
recently-passed healthcare reform bill is in the neighborhood of $850
billion. It would take a wild imagination and/or shady accounting
tricks to claim such a bill won't add to the deficit, not to mention
complete ignorance of the entire recorded history of the federal
government's financial wisdom. Government programs/projects that come
in under budget are exceedingly rare, and entitlements achieving cost
savings is bloody un-fucking-heard of.
Now, you may have heard the Congressional Budget Office has said
health care reform won't add to the deficit in the first ten years.
Fair enough, but that depends on what you mean by the first ten years.
Most of the spending doesn't begin until 2014, so if you start
counting with 2010, then the bill is, ahem, deficit neutral (and
that's assuming many unpopular cost-cutting measures will be enacted
at some unspecified future point). If you start counting in 2014, the
CBO numbers add up to $1.8 trillion. I'm usually skeptical of
information that comes from government agencies, but when they talk
about spending money, I find them pretty convincing.
3. "Let me be clear: The United States government has no interest in
running GM. We have no intention of running GM."
This one was notable for its sheer piss-in-your-ear-and-tell-you-it's-
raining brazenness. Again, he says it twice, just to rub our pudgy
faces in it. Two paragraphs earlier, he announced Rick Wagoner was
"stepping aside" as GM's Chairman and CEO. In fairness, GM is a
longstanding welfare queen, and the government's de facto ownership of
GM didn't start on Obama's watch. But Obama's too smart not to know he
was bullshitting. HE SAID IT TWICE.
In GM news, the company posted a $1.15 billion loss in the Q3 2009,
and the U.S. Government Accountability Office has said it doesn't
expect their $50 billion bailout to ever be fully repaid. But there is
some good news. I just saved a bunch of mon Some guy named Fritz
Henderson, who happens to be GM's current CEO, "told reporters it is
his ‘mission' to prove the [GAO] wrong." He sounds like a plucky
fellow. I wish him well.
What? Henderson resigned two weeks after he said that? Mission
accomplished, so to speak. At least he didn't say it twice.
2. "Our [stimulus] plan will likely save or create three to four
million jobs. 90 percent of these jobs will be created in the private
sector."
Yes, of course. And then there was the pre-presidential white paper
with the infamous graph that suggested the stimulus would help cap
unemployment at 8.0%. It's probably not fair for me to hold Obama
accountable for politically-motivated economic projections that are
never right, no matter who makes them. But it would be fair for me to
hold him accountable for his sleazy insinuation that government
stimulus would primarily benefit the private sector.
As Michael Barone notes, public employment has remained largely
constant in 2009, while private sector employment declined. In
addition, about one-third of the $787 billion stimulus was meant for
state and local governments. I'm no statistician, but Obama's idea of
90% seems to conflict with mine. Maybe it's me. Is it me?
1. "If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase
by a single dime – not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not
your capital gains taxes. Nothing. Because the last thing we should do
in this economy is raise taxes on the middle-class."
Longtime readers will know this particular lie is dear to my heart.
After being in office less than one month, Obama raised the federal
tax on cigarettes by 71 cents to $1.00 per pack. Since Obama is a
former (?) smoker himself, I find it hard to believe he doesn't know
cigarette taxes primarily affect middle- and low-income Americans.
This lie is number one not only because of how quickly it became
manifest once Obama was in power, but because he's a bloody traitor.
Now, I understand some Americans don't think smokers are "real" poor
people or whatever. But even if you don't count cigarettes, Obama's
scheduled to break his tax promise on the first day of 2010, when 50
previously-enacted tax cuts will expire. So there.
In any event, I think we can all agree 2009 was crap. But at the same
time, it had its moments. And really, it could have been worse. It
could always be worse. Best wishes for a not-worse 2010, dear readers.
--rafiki
Thank you drive through.
Karolina Dean
That's the main reason for the creation of the White America Tea Party
movement!
Orson Wells as CitizenCain
"rafiki" <fi...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:30e0b5d8-f49d-4302...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/125662
I seem to recall
= snip =
No.
Lord Gow 333, not a White House approved poster!
"rafiki" <fi...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:30e0b5d8-f49d-4302...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
The story so far�
~~~~
The silence is deafening.
Nice find.
LG
--
"Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently." - Henry Ford
Mhoram
news:30e0b5d8-f49d-4302...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I seem to recall reading somewhere that people like to read list-based
articles when they browse the web. There are several reasons: the
headline reassuringly promises what the article contains; lists can be
read quickly; it's fun to argue about lists; it's fun to think about
what you'd put on the list. They're easy on the reader, and easy on
the writer. Everybody wins.
With that in mind, I've put together my top five lies of President
Barack Obama of 2009. I'll make the disclaimer that Obama's lies
aren't really much worse than you'd expect from a powerful elected
official from Chicago, and there's a chance that when he told them he
wasn't being willfully deceptive per se. On the other hand, what's he
done lately to earn the benefit of doubt?
The story so far�
*snip*
all valid points but nothing new - campaign promises are rarely ever kept in
either party. What still amazes me are that people really thought that
'change' meant a complete overhaul of the American political system. If you
were tired of the Bush presidency then fine, vote for a change, but don't
expect a Renaissance and mana falling from the sky for heaven's sake...
David E. Powell
because only White Americans pay taxes? If that's what you're saying
you're more racist than whoever you're accusing of racism, or
whatever.
Lord Gow 333, not a White House approved poster!
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:c5f0688a-3775-437b...@19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
~~~~
Don't you know that negroes are suppused to just shut up, take their welfare
check, and vote Democrat?
"Whatcha doin' tryin' to make a living there, Boy?"
"I sorry Sir! I'se just saw an opportunity."
" 'Nough of your sass, Boy! Now put down that paintbrush and pick up that
forty-oh!"
"Yessir, Massuh!"
LG
--
None will improve your lot if you yourself do not. - lunatic hypocrite
Bertolt Brecht, 1933
Karolina Dean
<lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote in messagenews:c5f0688a-3775-437b...@19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you joining your White American Tea Party friends on National
Strike Day Jan. 200????
Sueki Tartridge
I can still hear the echo from 2000 when the far left fringe kooks
were complaining that "Bush is ACTUALLY keeping his campaign
promises" !!
But,with Obama it's "Nothing but words,nothing but speeches". If his
campaign promises can't be believed why did you vote for him? The
color of his skin?
Sueki Tartridge
>
> - Show quoted text -
WTF is a "White America Tea Party"?? Are you white??
Lord Gow 333, not a White House approved poster!
"Sueki Tartridge" <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:619c84dd-5d62-496d...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
~~~~
No, he's insane.
LG
--
The shining beacon of truth in a newsgroup full of liberals. - rafiki
Lord Gow 333, not a White House approved poster!
~~~~
Only the black half...
Orson Wells as CitizenCain
"Lord Gow 333, not a White House approved poster!" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
in message news:k9qdnU6YopBM3tnW...@posted.localnet...
>
> "Sueki Tartridge" <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a0fdc308-2e89-4f75...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 4, 11:46 am, "Mhoram" <S...@WGW.NET> wrote:
>> "rafiki" <fi...@erols.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:30e0b5d8-f49d-4302...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/125662
>>
>> I seem to recall reading somewhere that people like to read list-based
>> articles when they browse the web. There are several reasons: the
>> headline reassuringly promises what the article contains; lists can be
>> read quickly; it's fun to argue about lists; it's fun to think about
>> what you'd put on the list. They're easy on the reader, and easy on
>> the writer. Everybody wins.
>>
>> With that in mind, I've put together my top five lies of President
>> Barack Obama of 2009. I'll make the disclaimer that Obama's lies
>> aren't really much worse than you'd expect from a powerful elected
>> official from Chicago, and there's a chance that when he told them he
>> wasn't being willfully deceptive per se. On the other hand, what's he
>> done lately to earn the benefit of doubt?
>>
>>
>> *snip*
>>
>> all valid points but nothing new - campaign promises are rarely ever kept
>> in
>> either party. What still amazes me are that people really thought that
>> 'change' meant a complete overhaul of the American political system. If
>> you
>> were tired of the Bush presidency then fine, vote for a change, but don't
>> expect a Renaissance and mana falling from the sky for heaven's sake...
>
> I can still hear the echo from 2000 when the far left fringe kooks
> were complaining that "Bush is ACTUALLY keeping his campaign
> promises" !!
>
> But,with Obama it's "Nothing but words,nothing but speeches". If his
> campaign promises can't be believed why did you vote for him? The
> color of his skin?
>
> ~~~~
> Only the black half...
>
> LG
Damn you really need to just shut up. Just.................shut up. Shut the
hell up. Seriously. And go away while you are at it please.
Rob Cypher aka "The Anti-Bob"
>http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/125662
>
>I seem to recall reading somewhere that people like to read list-based
>articles when they browse the web. There are several reasons: the
>headline reassuringly promises what the article contains; lists can be
>read quickly; it's fun to argue about lists; it's fun to think about
>what you'd put on the list. They're easy on the reader, and easy on
>the writer. Everybody wins.
I seem to recall that you're a bitch. And that I can kick your ass.
So this WILL be fun to think about. Everybody WILL win, indeed.
>With that in mind, I've put together my top five lies of President
>Barack Obama of 2009. I'll make the disclaimer that Obama's lies
>aren't really much worse than you'd expect from a powerful elected
>official from Chicago, and there's a chance that when he told them he
>wasn't being willfully deceptive per se. On the other hand, what's he
>done lately to earn the benefit of doubt?
>
>The story so far�
>
>(Note: Not all lies below were told during 2009. Some were promises
>made previously that were broken in 2009. So, you know, FYI, that's
>the standard I'm operating under here. Like I said, easy on the
>writer.)
So why didn't you do your own homework and find something current
regarding these supposed lies? You're fucking sloppy already.
>5. "When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you
>will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I
>sign it."
>
>Now that he's been president for a year, it's funny to reminisce about
>candidate Obama's high ideals. Apparently, at one point, this Obama
>fellow just tossed out this "I'll put bills online before I sign them"
>line on a whim. He must have thought it sounded good at the time, but
>I can't imagine he ever intended to keep it. It's one of those pie-in-
>sky platitudes politicians toss out because they don't expect anyone
>to hold them to it.
>
>So let's have a laugh and hold him to it. The first major legislation
>executed by the Chief Executive was the so-called stimulus act in
>February. With a price tag of $787 billion, and at a length of over
>400 pages, this was precisely the type of bill worthy of five days of
>public scrutiny. As it happened, Congress passed the bill late on a
>Friday, and Obama signed it on a Tuesday. It's nice they gave us the
>weekend to work on it, but would it have been too much to delay
>signing it for a few more days, just to keep up appearances? The
>infamous healthcare reform bill that just passed Congress is a couple
>thousand pages long. Does anyone believe the public will have
>sufficient time to scrutinize the final version before Obama puts his
>autograph on it? In the internet age, there's no excuse for a
>government not to put bills online and allow people enough time to
>read them.
"Wah, he didn't let it sit there long enough because I can't fucking
read!!!!!"
>4. "I will not sign a [healthcare reform] plan that adds one dime to
>our deficits -- either now or in the future. I will not sign it if it
>adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period."
>
>He says it twice, as if to taunt us. The purported cost of the
>recently-passed healthcare reform bill is in the neighborhood of $850
>billion. It would take a wild imagination and/or shady accounting
>tricks to claim such a bill won't add to the deficit, not to mention
>complete ignorance of the entire recorded history of the federal
>government's financial wisdom. Government programs/projects that come
>in under budget are exceedingly rare, and entitlements achieving cost
>savings is bloody un-fucking-heard of.
>
>Now, you may have heard the Congressional Budget Office has said
>health care reform won't add to the deficit in the first ten years.
>Fair enough, but that depends on what you mean by the first ten years.
>Most of the spending doesn't begin until 2014, so if you start
>counting with 2010, then the bill is, ahem, deficit neutral (and
>that's assuming many unpopular cost-cutting measures will be enacted
>at some unspecified future point). If you start counting in 2014, the
>CBO numbers add up to $1.8 trillion. I'm usually skeptical of
>information that comes from government agencies, but when they talk
>about spending money, I find them pretty convincing.
This guy probably jacked himself off when Bush invaded Iraq. Where was this
idiot when they were budgeting that war? Probably bitching at some kids
about their "pants saggin".
>3. "Let me be clear: The United States government has no interest in
>running GM. We have no intention of running GM."
>
>This one was notable for its sheer piss-in-your-ear-and-tell-you-it's-
>raining brazenness. Again, he says it twice, just to rub our pudgy
>faces in it. Two paragraphs earlier, he announced Rick Wagoner was
>"stepping aside" as GM's Chairman and CEO. In fairness, GM is a
>longstanding welfare queen, and the government's de facto ownership of
>GM didn't start on Obama's watch. But Obama's too smart not to know he
>was bullshitting. HE SAID IT TWICE.
>
>In GM news, the company posted a $1.15 billion loss in the Q3 2009,
>and the U.S. Government Accountability Office has said it doesn't
>expect their $50 billion bailout to ever be fully repaid. But there is
>some good news. I just saved a bunch of mon Some guy named Fritz
>Henderson, who happens to be GM's current CEO, "told reporters it is
>his �mission' to prove the [GAO] wrong." He sounds like a plucky
>fellow. I wish him well.
>
>What? Henderson resigned two weeks after he said that? Mission
>accomplished, so to speak. At least he didn't say it twice.
What, did you expect Obama to be "oh yay, we own GM!!!!!!!". Fuck,
that shit could be an albatross unless they're streamlined for
efficiency instead of cost. You're fucking weird, yo.
>2. "Our [stimulus] plan will likely save or create three to four
>million jobs. 90 percent of these jobs will be created in the private
>sector."
>
>Yes, of course. And then there was the pre-presidential white paper
>with the infamous graph that suggested the stimulus would help cap
>unemployment at 8.0%. It's probably not fair for me to hold Obama
>accountable for politically-motivated economic projections that are
>never right, no matter who makes them. But it would be fair for me to
>hold him accountable for his sleazy insinuation that government
>stimulus would primarily benefit the private sector.
>
>As Michael Barone notes, public employment has remained largely
>constant in 2009, while private sector employment declined. In
>addition, about one-third of the $787 billion stimulus was meant for
>state and local governments. I'm no statistician, but Obama's idea of
>90% seems to conflict with mine. Maybe it's me. Is it me?
So it's "sleazy" when Obama makes jobs for the "private" sector (whatever
that means), but when Cheney puts his people Blackwater et al. in prime
positions to make money off dead Iraqis you idiots don't say shit. Yep.
>1. "If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase
>by a single dime � not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not
>your capital gains taxes. Nothing. Because the last thing we should do
>in this economy is raise taxes on the middle-class."
>
>Longtime readers will know this particular lie is dear to my heart.
>After being in office less than one month, Obama raised the federal
>tax on cigarettes by 71 cents to $1.00 per pack. Since Obama is a
>former (?) smoker himself, I find it hard to believe he doesn't know
>cigarette taxes primarily affect middle- and low-income Americans.
>This lie is number one not only because of how quickly it became
>manifest once Obama was in power, but because he's a bloody traitor.
>
>Now, I understand some Americans don't think smokers are "real" poor
>people or whatever. But even if you don't count cigarettes, Obama's
>scheduled to break his tax promise on the first day of 2010, when 50
>previously-enacted tax cuts will expire. So there.
God, this is supposed to be a real complaint? "He taxes our cancer sticks higher".
Fuck outta here. Get off that shit, you've already been made aware about what it
does to you. I'm trying myself, currently weaning myself off with Camel snus.
We'll see if it works or if I need Chantix.
>In any event, I think we can all agree 2009 was crap. But at the same
>time, it had its moments. And really, it could have been worse. It
>could always be worse. Best wishes for a not-worse 2010, dear readers.
>
>--rafiki
>
>Thank you drive through.
"2009 was crap because my party was exposed as a bunch of greedy old pedophiles."
--
Rob Cypher
Livejournal: http://robcypher.livejournal.com
Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/robcyphercollective
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/robcypher
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/robcypher
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/robcypher
Music Reviews: http://apps.facebook.com/visualcdrack/people/1713595594
Book Reviews: http://apps.facebook.com/facebookshelf/people/1713595594
Movie Reviews: http://apps.facebook.com/dvdshelf/people/1713595594
TV Reviews: http://apps.facebook.com/livingsocial-tv/people/1713595594
Video Game Reviews: http://apps.facebook.com/videogamerack/people/1713595594
RATINGS GUIDE: ***** - essential **** - must have *** - worth a look
** - for fans only * and under - Crap
WARNING - THE SHROOMERY IS FULL OF RACISTS. Proof is presented here: http://robcypher.livejournal.com/68904.html
Karolina Dean
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Every single Tea Party event is all white people, so its a White
America Tea Party
Siobhan Medeiros
>
> I seem to recall reading somewhere that people like to read list-based
> articles when they browse the web. There are several reasons: the
> headline reassuringly promises what the article contains; lists can be
> read quickly; it's fun to argue about lists; it's fun to think about
> what you'd put on the list. They're easy on the reader, and easy on
> the writer. Everybody wins.
>
> With that in mind, I've put together my top five lies of President
> Barack Obama of 2009. I'll make the disclaimer that Obama's lies
> aren't really much worse than you'd expect from a powerful elected
> official from Chicago, and there's a chance that when he told them he
> wasn't being willfully deceptive per se. On the other hand, what's he
> done lately to earn the benefit of doubt?
>
> The story so far…
>
> (Note: Not all lies below were told during 2009. Some were promises
> made previously that were broken in 2009. So, you know, FYI, that's
> the standard I'm operating under here. Like I said, easy on the
> writer.)
>
> 5. "When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you
> will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I
> sign it."
>
Really? I haven't heard that one. When did he say that? Cite,
please.
> Now that he's been president for a year, it's funny to reminisce about
> candidate Obama's high ideals. Apparently, at one point, this Obama
> fellow just tossed out this "I'll put bills online before I sign them"
> line on a whim. He must have thought it sounded good at the time, but
> I can't imagine he ever intended to keep it. It's one of those pie-in-
> sky platitudes politicians toss out because they don't expect anyone
> to hold them to it.
>
> So let's have a laugh and hold him to it. The first major legislation
> executed by the Chief Executive was the so-called stimulus act in
> February. With a price tag of $787 billion, and at a length of over
> 400 pages, this was precisely the type of bill worthy of five days of
> public scrutiny. As it happened, Congress passed the bill late on a
> Friday, and Obama signed it on a Tuesday. It's nice they gave us the
> weekend to work on it, but would it have been too much to delay
> signing it for a few more days, just to keep up appearances? The
> infamous healthcare reform bill that just passed Congress is a couple
> thousand pages long. Does anyone believe the public will have
> sufficient time to scrutinize the final version before Obama puts his
> autograph on it? In the internet age, there's no excuse for a
> government not to put bills online and allow people enough time to
> read them.
>
As I recall, they needed that legislation as soon as possible.
Obama's smart enough to know when something takes priority.
If this is #5, then your list is pretty lame.
> 4. "I will not sign a [healthcare reform] plan that adds one dime to
> our deficits -- either now or in the future. I will not sign it if it
> adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period."
>
> He says it twice, as if to taunt us. The purported cost of the
> recently-passed healthcare reform bill is in the neighborhood of $850
> billion. It would take a wild imagination and/or shady accounting
> tricks to claim such a bill won't add to the deficit, not to mention
> complete ignorance of the entire recorded history of the federal
> government's financial wisdom.
Easy. It doesn't add to the deficit because the cost of the system
it's replacing is even more. Learn some basic accounting, moron.
>Government programs/projects that come
> in under budget are exceedingly rare, and entitlements achieving cost
> savings is bloody un-fucking-heard of.
>
> Now, you may have heard the Congressional Budget Office has said
> health care reform won't add to the deficit in the first ten years.
> Fair enough, but that depends on what you mean by the first ten years.
> Most of the spending doesn't begin until 2014, so if you start
> counting with 2010, then the bill is, ahem, deficit neutral (and
> that's assuming many unpopular cost-cutting measures will be enacted
> at some unspecified future point). If you start counting in 2014, the
> CBO numbers add up to $1.8 trillion. I'm usually skeptical of
> information that comes from government agencies, but when they talk
> about spending money, I find them pretty convincing.
>
If if if if if. In other words, you don't know it's a lie or not.
That makes YOU the liar for calling it a lie.
> 3. "Let me be clear: The United States government has no interest in
> running GM. We have no intention of running GM."
>
> This one was notable for its sheer piss-in-your-ear-and-tell-you-it's-
> raining brazenness. Again, he says it twice, just to rub our pudgy
> faces in it. Two paragraphs earlier, he announced Rick Wagoner was
> "stepping aside" as GM's Chairman and CEO. In fairness, GM is a
> longstanding welfare queen, and the government's de facto ownership of
> GM didn't start on Obama's watch. But Obama's too smart not to know he
> was bullshitting. HE SAID IT TWICE.
>
> In GM news, the company posted a $1.15 billion loss in the Q3 2009,
> and the U.S. Government Accountability Office has said it doesn't
> expect their $50 billion bailout to ever be fully repaid. But there is
> some good news. I just saved a bunch of mon Some guy named Fritz
> Henderson, who happens to be GM's current CEO, "told reporters it is
> his ‘mission' to prove the [GAO] wrong." He sounds like a plucky
> fellow. I wish him well.
>
> What? Henderson resigned two weeks after he said that? Mission
> accomplished, so to speak. At least he didn't say it twice.
>
Yeah, it would have been sooooooo much better to let GM go down the
toilet and start the next Great Depression. Even if this was a lie,
I'm willing to forgive it. Obama couldn't do much worse running GM
than the old guard did.
> 2. "Our [stimulus] plan will likely save or create three to four
> million jobs. 90 percent of these jobs will be created in the private
> sector."
>
> Yes, of course. And then there was the pre-presidential white paper
> with the infamous graph that suggested the stimulus would help cap
> unemployment at 8.0%. It's probably not fair for me to hold Obama
> accountable for politically-motivated economic projections that are
> never right, no matter who makes them. But it would be fair for me to
> hold him accountable for his sleazy insinuation that government
> stimulus would primarily benefit the private sector.
>
In other words, you haven't been able to prove #2, just go off on some
tangent about him being off by 2 points on the unemployment stats
(forgetting about who started the mess in the first place). So your
#2 lie is nonexistent, and you have shown to be a liar - again.
> As Michael Barone notes, public employment has remained largely
> constant in 2009, while private sector employment declined. In
> addition, about one-third of the $787 billion stimulus was meant for
> state and local governments. I'm no statistician, but Obama's idea of
> 90% seems to conflict with mine. Maybe it's me. Is it me?
It's you. He said SAVE or create. Without them, you'd be even deeper
in the crapper. Got it now, retard?
>
> 1. "If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase
> by a single dime – not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not
> your capital gains taxes. Nothing. Because the last thing we should do
> in this economy is raise taxes on the middle-class."
>
> Longtime readers will know this particular lie is dear to my heart.
> After being in office less than one month, Obama raised the federal
> tax on cigarettes by 71 cents to $1.00 per pack.
BOOO HOOO HOOO!!!! OH THE HORROR!!! WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH! CIVILIZATIONS
GOING TO COLLAPSE! MILLIONS ARE GOING TO DIE!!!!
In case you're not aware, retard, tobacco taxes aren't income,
payroll, or capital gains. Don't want to pay them? Quit smoking. Or
is your will too weak?
>Since Obama is a
> former (?) smoker himself, I find it hard to believe he doesn't know
> cigarette taxes primarily affect middle- and low-income Americans.
Last time I heard he quit. That makes him smarter than you.
> This lie is number one not only because of how quickly it became
> manifest once Obama was in power, but because he's a bloody traitor.
>
Raising cigarette taxes makes him a traitor? BWA HA HA HA! Tell me,
moron, how do you figure that one?
Fuck, I'd forgive him that one too. Go ahead, raise cigarette taxes.
Double them, triple them. Maybe if teenagers see their allowance
going up in smoke, they won't start.
> Now, I understand some Americans don't think smokers are "real" poor
> people or whatever. But even if you don't count cigarettes, Obama's
> scheduled to break his tax promise on the first day of 2010, when 50
> previously-enacted tax cuts will expire. So there.
Then it won't be Obama raising your taxes, it'll be Bush.
ANd that's probably a good thing, since the cuts all favor the rich
and you can't afford them anyway.
>
> In any event, I think we can all agree 2009 was crap.
After the train wreck that was 2008, it pretty much had to. The most
Obama could hope for in 2009 was to halt the decline, which he seems
to have done.
>But at the same
> time, it had its moments. And really, it could have been worse. It
> could always be worse.
Yeah, it could have been 2008.
>Best wishes for a not-worse 2010, dear readers.
I think it's going to be another shitty year for conservatives. I
hope its a miserable one for lying shiteaters like yourself.
>
> --rafiki
>
> Thank you drive through.
You named yourself after a baboon. How appropriate.
Siobhan Medeiros
Because retards have too much time on their hands.
Siobhan Medeiros
> articles when they browse the web. There are several reasons: the
> headline reassuringly promises what the article contains; lists can be
> read quickly; it's fun to argue about lists; it's fun to think about
> what you'd put on the list. They're easy on the reader, and easy on
> the writer. Everybody wins.
> With that in mind, I've put together my top five lies of President
> Barack Obama of 2009. I'll make the disclaimer that Obama's lies
> aren't really much worse than you'd expect from a powerful elected
> official from Chicago, and there's a chance that when he told them he
> wasn't being willfully deceptive per se. On the other hand, what's he
> done lately to earn the benefit of doubt?
> The story so far…
> (Note: Not all lies below were told during 2009. Some were promises
> made previously that were broken in 2009. So, you know, FYI, that's
> the standard I'm operating under here. Like I said, easy on the
> writer.)
> 5. "When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you
> will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I
> sign it."
Really? I haven't heard that one. When did he say that? Cite,
please.
- Hide quoted text -
> Now that he's been president for a year, it's funny to reminisce about
> candidate Obama's high ideals. Apparently, at one point, this Obama
> fellow just tossed out this "I'll put bills online before I sign them"
> line on a whim. He must have thought it sounded good at the time, but
> I can't imagine he ever intended to keep it. It's one of those pie-in-
> sky platitudes politicians toss out because they don't expect anyone
> to hold them to it.
> So let's have a laugh and hold him to it. The first major legislation
> executed by the Chief Executive was the so-called stimulus act in
> February. With a price tag of $787 billion, and at a length of over
> 400 pages, this was precisely the type of bill worthy of five days of
> public scrutiny. As it happened, Congress passed the bill late on a
> Friday, and Obama signed it on a Tuesday. It's nice they gave us the
> weekend to work on it, but would it have been too much to delay
> signing it for a few more days, just to keep up appearances? The
> infamous healthcare reform bill that just passed Congress is a couple
> thousand pages long. Does anyone believe the public will have
> sufficient time to scrutinize the final version before Obama puts his
> autograph on it? In the internet age, there's no excuse for a
> government not to put bills online and allow people enough time to
> read them.
As I recall, they needed that legislation as soon as possible.
Obama's smart enough to know when something takes priority.
If this is #5, then your list is pretty lame.
> 4. "I will not sign a [healthcare reform] plan that adds one dime to
> our deficits -- either now or in the future. I will not sign it if it
> adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period."
> He says it twice, as if to taunt us. The purported cost of the
> recently-passed healthcare reform bill is in the neighborhood of $850
> billion. It would take a wild imagination and/or shady accounting
> tricks to claim such a bill won't add to the deficit, not to mention
> complete ignorance of the entire recorded history of the federal
> government's financial wisdom.
Easy. It doesn't add to the deficit because the cost of the system
it's replacing is even more. Learn some basic accounting, moron.
>Government programs/projects that come
> in under budget are exceedingly rare, and entitlements achieving cost
> savings is bloody un-fucking-heard of.
> Now, you may have heard the Congressional Budget Office has said
> health care reform won't add to the deficit in the first ten years.
> Fair enough, but that depends on what you mean by the first ten years.
> Most of the spending doesn't begin until 2014, so if you start
> counting with 2010, then the bill is, ahem, deficit neutral (and
> that's assuming many unpopular cost-cutting measures will be enacted
> at some unspecified future point). If you start counting in 2014, the
> CBO numbers add up to $1.8 trillion. I'm usually skeptical of
> information that comes from government agencies, but when they talk
> about spending money, I find them pretty convincing.
If if if if if. In other words, you don't know it's a lie or not.
That makes YOU the liar for calling it a lie.
- Show quoted text -
Yeah, it would have been sooooooo much better to let GM go down the
toilet and start the next Great Depression. Even if this was a lie,
I'm willing to forgive it. Obama couldn't do much worse running GM
than the old guard did.
> 2. "Our [stimulus] plan will likely save or create three to four
> million jobs. 90 percent of these jobs will be created in the private
> sector."
> Yes, of course. And then there was the pre-presidential white paper
> with the infamous graph that suggested the stimulus would help cap
> unemployment at 8.0%. It's probably not fair for me to hold Obama
> accountable for politically-motivated economic projections that are
> never right, no matter who makes them. But it would be fair for me to
> hold him accountable for his sleazy insinuation that government
> stimulus would primarily benefit the private sector.
In other words, you haven't been able to prove #2, just go off on
some
tangent about him being off by 2 points on the unemployment stats
(forgetting about who started the mess in the first place). So your
#2 lie is nonexistent, and you have shown to be a liar - again.
> As Michael Barone notes, public employment has remained largely
> constant in 2009, while private sector employment declined. In
> addition, about one-third of the $787 billion stimulus was meant for
> state and local governments. I'm no statistician, but Obama's idea of
> 90% seems to conflict with mine. Maybe it's me. Is it me?
It's you. He said SAVE or create. Without them, you'd be even
deeper
in the crapper. Got it now, retard?
> 1. "If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase
> by a single dime – not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not
> your capital gains taxes. Nothing. Because the last thing we should do
> in this economy is raise taxes on the middle-class."
> Longtime readers will know this particular lie is dear to my heart.
> After being in office less than one month, Obama raised the federal
> tax on cigarettes by 71 cents to $1.00 per pack.
BOOO HOOO HOOO!!!! OH THE HORROR!!! WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
CIVILIZATIONS
GOING TO COLLAPSE! MILLIONS ARE GOING TO DIE!!!!
In case you're not aware, retard, tobacco taxes aren't income,
payroll, or capital gains. Don't want to pay them? Quit smoking.
Or
is your will too weak?
>Since Obama is a
> former (?) smoker himself, I find it hard to believe he doesn't know
> cigarette taxes primarily affect middle- and low-income Americans.
Last time I heard he quit. That makes him smarter than you.
> This lie is number one not only because of how quickly it became
> manifest once Obama was in power, but because he's a bloody traitor.
Raising cigarette taxes makes him a traitor? BWA HA HA HA! Tell me,
moron, how do you figure that one?
Fuck, I'd forgive him that one too. Go ahead, raise cigarette taxes.
Double them, triple them. Maybe if teenagers see their allowance
going up in smoke, they won't start.
> Now, I understand some Americans don't think smokers are "real" poor
> people or whatever. But even if you don't count cigarettes, Obama's
> scheduled to break his tax promise on the first day of 2010, when 50
> previously-enacted tax cuts will expire. So there.
Then it won't be Obama raising your taxes, it'll be Bush.
ANd that's probably a good thing, since the cuts all favor the rich
and you can't afford them anyway.
> In any event, I think we can all agree 2009 was crap.
After the train wreck that was 2008, it pretty much had to. The most
Obama could hope for in 2009 was to halt the decline, which he seems
to have done.
>But at the same
> time, it had its moments. And really, it could have been worse. It
> could always be worse.
Yeah, it could have been 2008.
>Best wishes for a not-worse 2010, dear readers.
I think it's going to be another shitty year for conservatives. I
hope its a miserable one for lying shiteaters like yourself.
> --rafiki
> Thank you drive through.
Siobhan Medeiros
I disagree, none of them are valid.
Siobhan Medeiros
Thing is though, he's actually been keeping his promises. Better than
Bush did.
I wonder what the top five Bush lies will be?
Let me see...#1 Obama lie - he raised cigarette taxes.
#1 Bush lie - he told us Iraq had WMDs and was in league with Al Qaeda
to win support for an illegal invasion.
Hmmm....let me think..which is worse....lying about cigarette taxes;
lying about a war. Cigarette taxes, war. Cigarette taxes, war.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......
Sueki Tartridge
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here's a few for your viewing enjoyment. This is just a little teaser.
There's more to come.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTRy0uTuv0M&feature=PlayList&p=30C0C870243B751A&index=0&playnext=1
Phin
alerted? They should look into this.
-=-Phin
Grebo
Lord Gow 333, not a White House approved poster!
"Siobhan Medeiros" <sbm...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:8ddedf3a-0a7d-4de0...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
~~~~
Does it hurt?
Lord Gow 333, not a White House approved poster!
(snip)
Please be insane somewhere else.
LG
--
RSPW Hall of Fame, Class of 2008!
Lord Gow 333, not a White House approved poster!
On Jan 3, 7:44 pm, rafiki <fi...@erols.com> wrote:
> http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/125662
>
> I seem to recall reading somewhere that people like to read list-based
> articles when they browse the web. There are several reasons: the
> headline reassuringly promises what the article contains; lists can be
> read quickly; it's fun to argue about lists; it's fun to think about
> what you'd put on the list. They're easy on the reader, and easy on
> the writer. Everybody wins.
>
> With that in mind, I've put together my top five lies of President
> Barack Obama of 2009. I'll make the disclaimer that Obama's lies
> aren't really much worse than you'd expect from a powerful elected
> official from Chicago, and there's a chance that when he told them he
> wasn't being willfully deceptive per se. On the other hand, what's he
> done lately to earn the benefit of doubt?
>
> The story so far�
>
> (Note: Not all lies below were told during 2009. Some were promises
> made previously that were broken in 2009. So, you know, FYI, that's
> the standard I'm operating under here. Like I said, easy on the
> writer.)
>
> 5. "When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you
> will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I
> sign it."
>
Really? I haven't heard that one. When did he say that? Cite,
please.
~~~~
So you didn't watch the debates then? You just pulled the lever for the
black guy.
Lord Gow 333, not a White House approved poster!
>Poop.
IAWTPoop!
LG
--
The most charismatic and entertaining of the right-wing kooks that lurk
around here. - ViNNY
Lord Gow 333, not a White House approved poster!
"Phin" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:8olak5pg9unqsic55...@4ax.com...
> WHAT??? A politician LYING?? When did this start?? Has the media been
> alerted? They should look into this.
Just ignored all the evidence and voted for the black guy, huh?
Grebo
On Jan 7, 11:27 am, "Lord Gow 333, not a White House approved poster!"
<lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Phin" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
Sueki Tartridge
Then why have campaigns if your candidate will do nothing but lie and
smear his opponent? Why not just march your boy to the podium and
place the crown on his head? George Soros couldv'e saved hundereds of
millions.
You probably weren't born then but the progressives were pissing and
moaning after the 2000 election about "Bush is ACTUALLY doing what he
promised during the campaign" !! OOOHH !! THE HUMANITY !!
Zapanaz
<hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 6, 9:38�pm, Phin <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> WHAT??? A politician LYING?? When did this start?? Has the media been
>> alerted? They should look into this.
>>
>> -=-Phin
>
>Then why have campaigns if your candidate will do nothing but lie and
>smear his opponent?
Why are you asking him?
It wasn't his idea.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
I SUGGEST GRANDMA NEEDS TO PUT HER DAMN SHIRT ON AND GET HER TITTIES
OUT OF MY DRINK.
:: Currently listening to Briefcase, 2004, by Tom Rothrock, from "Collateral Soundtrack"
Mhoram
************************
You raise a valid point since a large majority of Americans are sheep who
pull their party's lever without thought in every election despite the
candidate being offered.
Grebo
Bird
> http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/125662
>
> I seem to recall reading somewhere that people like to read list-based
> articles when they browse the web. There are several reasons: the
> headline reassuringly promises what the article contains; lists can be
> read quickly; it's fun to argue about lists; it's fun to think about
> what you'd put on the list. They're easy on the reader, and easy on
> the writer. Everybody wins.
>
> With that in mind, I've put together my top five lies of President
> Barack Obama of 2009. I'll make the disclaimer that Obama's lies
> aren't really much worse than you'd expect from a powerful elected
> official from Chicago, and there's a chance that when he told them he
> wasn't being willfully deceptive per se. On the other hand, what's he
> done lately to earn the benefit of doubt?
>
>
> (Note: Not all lies below were told during 2009. Some were promises
> made previously that were broken in 2009. So, you know, FYI, that's
> the standard I'm operating under here. Like I said, easy on the
> writer.)
>
>
> 5. "When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you
> will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I
> sign it."
>
> candidate Obama's high ideals. Apparently, at one point, this Obama
> fellow just tossed out this "I'll put bills online before I sign them"
> line on a whim. He must have thought it sounded good at the time, but
> I can't imagine he ever intended to keep it. It's one of those pie-in-
> sky platitudes politicians toss out because they don't expect anyone
> to hold them to it.
>
> So let's have a laugh and hold him to it. The first major legislation
> executed by the Chief Executive was the so-called stimulus act in
> February. With a price tag of $787 billion, and at a length of over
> 400 pages, this was precisely the type of bill worthy of five days of
> public scrutiny. As it happened, Congress passed the bill late on a
> Friday, and Obama signed it on a Tuesday. It's nice they gave us the
> weekend to work on it, but would it have been too much to delay
> signing it for a few more days, just to keep up appearances? The
> infamous healthcare reform bill that just passed Congress is a couple
> thousand pages long. Does anyone believe the public will have
> sufficient time to scrutinize the final version before Obama puts his
> autograph on it? In the internet age, there's no excuse for a
> government not to put bills online and allow people enough time to
> read them.
>
>
> our deficits -- either now or in the future. I will not sign it if it
> adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period."
>
> He says it twice, as if to taunt us. The purported cost of the
> recently-passed healthcare reform bill is in the neighborhood of $850
> billion. It would take a wild imagination and/or shady accounting
> tricks to claim such a bill won't add to the deficit, not to mention
> complete ignorance of the entire recorded history of the federal
> in under budget are exceedingly rare, and entitlements achieving cost
> savings is bloody un-fucking-heard of.
>
> Now, you may have heard the Congressional Budget Office has said
> health care reform won't add to the deficit in the first ten years.
> Fair enough, but that depends on what you mean by the first ten years.
> Most of the spending doesn't begin until 2014, so if you start
> counting with 2010, then the bill is, ahem, deficit neutral (and
> that's assuming many unpopular cost-cutting measures will be enacted
> at some unspecified future point). If you start counting in 2014, the
> CBO numbers add up to $1.8 trillion. I'm usually skeptical of
> information that comes from government agencies, but when they talk
> about spending money, I find them pretty convincing.
>
>
> running GM. We have no intention of running GM."
>
> This one was notable for its sheer piss-in-your-ear-and-tell-you-it's-
> raining brazenness. Again, he says it twice, just to rub our pudgy
> faces in it. Two paragraphs earlier, he announced Rick Wagoner was
> "stepping aside" as GM's Chairman and CEO. In fairness, GM is a
> longstanding welfare queen, and the government's de facto ownership of
> GM didn't start on Obama's watch. But Obama's too smart not to know he
> was bullshitting. HE SAID IT TWICE.
>
> In GM news, the company posted a $1.15 billion loss in the Q3 2009,
> and the U.S. Government Accountability Office has said it doesn't
> expect their $50 billion bailout to ever be fully repaid. But there is
> some good news. I just saved a bunch of mon Some guy named Fritz
> Henderson, who happens to be GM's current CEO, "told reporters it is
> fellow. I wish him well.
>
> What? Henderson resigned two weeks after he said that? Mission
> accomplished, so to speak. At least he didn't say it twice.
>
>
> million jobs. 90 percent of these jobs will be created in the private
> sector."
>
> Yes, of course. And then there was the pre-presidential white paper
> with the infamous graph that suggested the stimulus would help cap
> unemployment at 8.0%. It's probably not fair for me to hold Obama
> accountable for politically-motivated economic projections that are
> never right, no matter who makes them. But it would be fair for me to
> hold him accountable for his sleazy insinuation that government
> stimulus would primarily benefit the private sector.
>
> constant in 2009, while private sector employment declined. In
> addition, about one-third of the $787 billion stimulus was meant for
> state and local governments. I'm no statistician, but Obama's idea of
> 90% seems to conflict with mine. Maybe it's me. Is it me?
>
>
> your capital gains taxes. Nothing. Because the last thing we should do
> in this economy is raise taxes on the middle-class."
>
> Longtime readers will know this particular lie is dear to my heart.
> After being in office less than one month, Obama raised the federal
> former (?) smoker himself, I find it hard to believe he doesn't know
> cigarette taxes primarily affect middle- and low-income Americans.
> manifest once Obama was in power, but because he's a bloody traitor.
>
> people or whatever. But even if you don't count cigarettes, Obama's
> scheduled to break his tax promise on the first day of 2010, when 50
> previously-enacted tax cuts will expire. So there.
>
> time, it had its moments. And really, it could have been worse. It
>
> --rafiki
>
> Thank you drive through.
6. THERE ARE 60 STATES IN THE UNION
Rev. 11D Meow!
Go back to Yemen, you goat-fucking raghead!
Siobhan Medeiros
<lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Siobhan Medeiros" <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:cf841307-a795-4854...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> (snip)
>
> Please be insane somewhere else.
>
> LG
> --
> RSPW Hall of Fame, Class of 2008!
Evasion noted.
Lord Gow 333, not a White House approved poster!
Evasion noted.
~~~~
No, I pretty much stayed in one spot and let your desperate flailing carry
you right past me.
Orval Fairbairn
Bird <kill...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> rafiki wrote:
> > http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/125662
> >
> > I seem to recall reading somewhere that people like to read list-based
> > articles when they browse the web. There are several reasons: the
> > headline reassuringly promises what the article contains; lists can be
> > read quickly; it's fun to argue about lists; it's fun to think about
> > what you'd put on the list. They're easy on the reader, and easy on
> > the writer. Everybody wins.
> >
> > With that in mind, I've put together my top five lies of President
> > Barack Obama of 2009. I'll make the disclaimer that Obama's lies
> > aren't really much worse than you'd expect from a powerful elected
> > official from Chicago, and there's a chance that when he told them he
> > wasn't being willfully deceptive per se. On the other hand, what's he
> > done lately to earn the benefit of doubt?
> >
> > The story so far�
> > his �mission' to prove the [GAO] wrong." He sounds like a plucky
> > fellow. I wish him well.
> >
> > What? Henderson resigned two weeks after he said that? Mission
> > accomplished, so to speak. At least he didn't say it twice.
> >
> >
> > 2. "Our [stimulus] plan will likely save or create three to four
> > million jobs. 90 percent of these jobs will be created in the private
> > sector."
> >
> > Yes, of course. And then there was the pre-presidential white paper
> > with the infamous graph that suggested the stimulus would help cap
> > unemployment at 8.0%. It's probably not fair for me to hold Obama
> > accountable for politically-motivated economic projections that are
> > never right, no matter who makes them. But it would be fair for me to
> > hold him accountable for his sleazy insinuation that government
> > stimulus would primarily benefit the private sector.
> >
> > As Michael Barone notes, public employment has remained largely
> > constant in 2009, while private sector employment declined. In
> > addition, about one-third of the $787 billion stimulus was meant for
> > state and local governments. I'm no statistician, but Obama's idea of
> > 90% seems to conflict with mine. Maybe it's me. Is it me?
> >
> >
> > 1. "If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase
> > by a single dime � not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not
> > your capital gains taxes. Nothing. Because the last thing we should do
> > in this economy is raise taxes on the middle-class."
> >
> > Longtime readers will know this particular lie is dear to my heart.
> > After being in office less than one month, Obama raised the federal
> > tax on cigarettes by 71 cents to $1.00 per pack. Since Obama is a
> > former (?) smoker himself, I find it hard to believe he doesn't know
> > cigarette taxes primarily affect middle- and low-income Americans.
> > This lie is number one not only because of how quickly it became
> > manifest once Obama was in power, but because he's a bloody traitor.
> >
> > Now, I understand some Americans don't think smokers are "real" poor
> > people or whatever. But even if you don't count cigarettes, Obama's
> > scheduled to break his tax promise on the first day of 2010, when 50
> > previously-enacted tax cuts will expire. So there.
> >
> > In any event, I think we can all agree 2009 was crap. But at the same
> > time, it had its moments. And really, it could have been worse. It
> > could always be worse. Best wishes for a not-worse 2010, dear readers.
> >
> > --rafiki
> >
> > Thank you drive through.
>
> 6. THERE ARE 60 STATES IN THE UNION
We can now coin a new term for these: "Obamawhoppers."
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
Grebo
Siobhan Medeiros
<lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Siobhan Medeiros" <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:e016e9ba-9d17-483d...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 6, 9:19 pm, "Lord Gow 333, not a White House approved poster!"
>
> <lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Siobhan Medeiros" <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>
> >news:cf841307-a795-4854...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > (snip)
>
> > Please be insane somewhere else.
>
> > LG
> > --
> > RSPW Hall of Fame, Class of 2008!
>
> Evasion noted.
>
> ~~~~
> No, I pretty much stayed in one spot and let your desperate flailing carry
> you right past me.
>
> LG
> --
> The shining beacon of truth in a newsgroup full of liberals. - rafiki
Yeah, I can tell by the brilliant way you rebutted my points.
Siobhan Medeiros
Ooooooooooo......that's so...inconsequential.
Sueki Tartridge
>
> - Show quoted text -
Would you think it was "inconsequential" if we were discussing GW
Bush?? Me thinks not.
Lord Gow 333, not a White House approved poster!
~~~~
No brilliant rebuttal needed. You're a delusional idiot who's full of shit.
Siobhan Medeiros
Me thinks so. We had so much on Bush, there was no need to quibble
about little shit like on this vid.
Siobhan Medeiros
<lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Siobhan Medeiros" <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
Nope. Just wanted to know where it was from.
Not that this would change my opinion one way or another. Next to
Bush's or McCain's lies, this doesn't even count as a misdeamnor.
>
> LG
> --
> "Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently." - Henry Ford
Quoting an anti-semite. Way to go.
Siobhan Medeiros
No rebuttal period, brilliant or no.
You got nothing.
Lord Gow 333, not a White House approved poster!
You got nothing.
~~~~
Blah, blah, blah... shouldn't you be reading moveon.org or something?
Lord Gow 333, not a White House approved poster!
~~~~
Yes, we get it, you're a militant liberal jackass. Enjoy your delusion.
~~~~
> LG
> --
> "Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently." - Henry
> Ford
Quoting an anti-semite. Way to go.
~~~~
My goodness what a fresh and novel perspective that I have never, ever, ever
heard before. You are truly a visionary!