T1B

He makes me want to puke. What a fucking asshole.

Fuck you, piece of shit.

I missed the big speach...did he say the exact date hes taking our guns away?

88 wrote:Screwy, are you feeling OK? I thought you and BHO were cool.

He's working the DoD beat last I heard. He would be better off trying to get accurate information from Mike Shannahan. Small wonder he's so frustrated.

Huh we agree on something.

The word I took away from his talk was confiscation and control.


Union hacks around the country are rejoicing today at his suggestion to increase the minimum wage since so many of their wages are multiples of the minimum wage.

Sadly, what most of the country doesn't understand is that the raising of the minimum wage actually reduces our purchasing power.

The rising young star or the GOP = not ready for Prime Time

Left Seater wrote:Sadly, what most of the country doesn't understand is that the raising of the minimum wage actually reduces our purchasing power.

Leaving it where it is sure the fuck isn't helping.

Left Seater wrote: Sadly, what most of the country doesn't understand is that the raising of the minimum wage actually reduces our purchasing power.

The dumbest portion of the population will have their purchasing power increased. If I'm Wal-Mart or any other big box price slashing retailer, I'm creaming in my cheap slacks over the potential.

R-Jack wrote:The dumbest portion of the population will have their purchasing power increased.

No better way to stimulate the economy. Giving money to rich people takes money OUT of circulation. Giving money to poor folk means there is more money in circulation because they need it to pay bills or buy crack or genuine imitation velvet Elvis paintings.

BSmack wrote:

88 wrote:Screwy, are you feeling OK? I thought you and BHO were cool.

He's working the DoD beat last I heard.

The DoD is using civilian contractors for jizz-mopping?

Learn something knew every day, I guess.

I'm not DoD, idiot. Stick to being shit-stomped by your wife.

BSmack wrote:Giving money to poor folk means there is more money in circulation because they need it to pay bills or buy crack or genuine imitation velvet Elvis paintings.

Who said anything about giving money?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Learn something knew every day, I guess.

Hey, cut him some slack, he was probably using his voice transcribing program like Killitard.

Mikey wrote:The rising young star or the GOP = not ready for Prime Time

.......cause Rubio lacks the only qualification that a POTUS needs, the ability to comfortably speak in front of TV cameras using a teleprompter.

sin,

limp-wristed, mouth-breathing liberals.


p.s. fuck off screwy.

If having the intellectual capacity of a below average 9th grader qualifies, then I guess he's your man.

Couple of things here.

When I said "our" purchasing power, I was speaking about those that post here. I don't think too many of the posters here are earning minimum wage. Raising minimum wage just means higher prices for many items. Achmed at the local corner store gets a raise and the price of your pack of gum goes up to support it.

It also hurts those that are on fixed incomes, read the elderly and those getting a government hand out. They see their purchasing power reduced.

As for Wal-Mart they have a crap ton of part time minimum wage employees so this really hits them hard and yes prices rise at Wal-Mart as well.

But as I said above with many union hacks wages tied to the minimum wage the increase isn't just two dollars an hour it is $6 or $8 an hour which costs us all.

Presumably, a sense of decorum kept senators and representatives from rolling in the aisles in laughter when the president uncorked this line: “The greatest nation on Earth cannot keep conducting its business by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the next.”

88 wrote:Screwy, are you feeling OK? I thought you and BHO were cool.

He's trolling - and it worked.

Left Seater wrote:

As for Wal-Mart they have a crap ton of part time minimum wage employees so this really hits them hard and yes prices rise at Wal-Mart as well.

Wal-Mart, Target and retailers of that ilk are big enough to absorb the increased labor expense and keep the cost of goods as close to stagnent as possible. That's where the barely employable bottom feeders that "earn" minimum wage shop alredy. My point was that this would be a big win for the retail giants more than the middle of the road companies or small business. A significant chunk of their customer base has their discresionary spending elevated and they are the ones with the ability to keep costs down by hook or crook. Fuckin cha-ching city. Sure they have to pay a little more for some mouthbreather to ring them up, but with the dollars rolling in they will probably have to increase their minimum wage workforce to handle all the customers that the small businesses lost because they couldn't keep their costs down. At least it's more folks paying taxes to offset the tax loss of the "mom&pops" who got ran out of business.

Basically, a minimum wage increase really only helps the rich get richer.

War Wagon wrote:He's trolling - and it worked.

No, I'm not. Don't speak until you're spoken to.

I'm tired. I'm sick and fucking tired of the Administration spitting in the faces of voters.

I'm sick and fucking tired of a president who railed against so many things wrong about the Bush administration: The assassinations via drones campaign, Guantanamo, rendition and the secret, extra-judicial expansion of executive power only for Obama to DOUBLE FUCKING DOWN on his predecessor's abominable foreign policy tactics.

I'm sick and fucking tired of an administration so arrogant where it's nominee for CIA director wouldn't even answer if the administration would target Americans on American soil for extra-judicial killings.

I'm sick and fucking tired of an administration so arrogant to think not only is it legal, but RIGHT for the President decree to kill Americans without habeas corpus, due process or any oversight whatsoever, just because some asshole bureaucrat said so.

I'm sick and fucking tired of an administration approving of grotesque prosecutorial overreach while bending over to protect big businesses.

I'm sick and fucking tired of an administration refusing to put criminal elite banking gangsters on trial because they are "too important to be put on trial."

I'm sick and fucking tired of a Justice Department that sits around does JACK FUCKING SHIT after law enforcement officers are brutally murdered in botched gun running surveillance schemes.

I'm sick and fucking tired of an administration selectively prosecuting leakers, whistleblowers and the receivers of leaked information and throwing these people in prison while establishment tool assholes like Bob Woodward get leaked classified information, but because it makes the White House look good, nobody throws him in prison.

I'm sick and fucking tired of an administration that runs a secret, extra-judicial no-fly list with no accountability that selectively punishes minority citizens without even charging them with crimes.

I'm sick and fucking tired of an administration lying through its teeth about its UNPRECEDENTED assassination program, but only once a DOJ memo justifying these assisinations gets leaked, then screams to the high heavens OH NOW WE WANT EVERYONE TO SEE THIS! MAKE SURE TO READ IT!!

I'm sick and fucking tired of an administration that then has the BALLS to refuse to provide the legal rational for its assassination program.

And I'm SICK AND FUCKING TIRED of liberal partisan hacks who defend the president's despicable behavior listed above because HE'S NOT BUSH, THEREFORE, IT'S ALL OK! WE TRUST HIM! HE'S SMARTER AND BETTER! Killing foreigners in secret away from battlefields is OK as long as George Fucking Bush isn't doing it! Hacks like Toure from MSNBC, cunts like Krystal Ball (:meds:) and especially former Mich gov Jennifer Granholm, who had the ovaries to say "we'd be more up in arms if Bush was doing it." No pride, no integrity, nothing. Just licking Obama's fucking taint.

And lastly, I'm sick and fucking tired of this Cult of Personality (TM) that the President has created. Where he is above the law, unaccountable to voters and the public, lies in our faces and then spits in them.

And then has the fucking BALLS to get up during the State of the Union and says he looks forward to being more transparent with Congress.

Fuck you, Obama and your despicable cabinet. FUCK YOU ALL.

Just curious , screwey, who did you vote for last November?

smackaholic wrote:Just curious , screwey, who did you vote for last November?

Your mother.

BSmack wrote: Giving money to poor folk means there is more money in circulation because they need it to pay bills or buy crack or genuine imitation velvet Elvis paintings.

Real kick the economy in the ass there. Slumlords, WalNeck, and Best Buy benefit again. Economies grow on discretionary spending. Tell us you knew.

Screw_Michigan wrote:And lastly, I'm sick and fucking tired of this Cult of Personality (TM) that the President has created. Where he is above the law, unaccountable to voters and the public, lies in our faces and then spits in them.

Why should he give a fuck? You still voted for him...twice.

Don't say you weren't warned.

Nice rant, Screw, seriously. Rackable, even.

But if you're indeed serious, you are a gullible fool to believe Obama has the power to make any decision his handlers won't allow. Wasn't that quite obvious from the first 4 years? And make no mistake, he's being handled. He doesn't control anything.

Papa Willie wrote:Next step - Libertarian Party.

PS: I was impressed enough to where I checked to see if he C&P'd that. He did not.

I like Cato. I wish they'd have more DoD types there for think tank shit, but DoD doesn't like Cato because they speak the truth.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commen ... s-balances

No, of course I didn't cut and paste it. I watch too many Congressional hearings to not have that rant locked and loaded.

I think he just found out that he couldn't afford one in this fucked up economy.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

War Wagon wrote:He's trolling - and it worked.

No, I'm not. Don't speak until you're spoken to.

I'm tired. I'm sick and fucking tired of the Administration spitting in the faces of voters.

I'm sick and fucking tired of a president who railed against so many things wrong about the Bush administration: The assassinations via drones campaign, Guantanamo, rendition and the secret, extra-judicial expansion of executive power only for Obama to DOUBLE FUCKING DOWN on his predecessor's abominable foreign policy tactics.

I'm sick and fucking tired of an administration so arrogant where it's nominee for CIA director wouldn't even answer if the administration would target Americans on American soil for extra-judicial killings.

I'm sick and fucking tired of an administration so arrogant to think not only is it legal, but RIGHT for the President decree to kill Americans without habeas corpus, due process or any oversight whatsoever, just because some asshole bureaucrat said so.

I'm sick and fucking tired of an administration approving of grotesque prosecutorial overreach while bending over to protect big businesses.

I'm sick and fucking tired of an administration refusing to put criminal elite banking gangsters on trial because they are "too important to be put on trial."

I'm sick and fucking tired of a Justice Department that sits around does JACK FUCKING SHIT after law enforcement officers are brutally murdered in botched gun running surveillance schemes.

I'm sick and fucking tired of an administration selectively prosecuting leakers, whistleblowers and the receivers of leaked information and throwing these people in prison while establishment tool assholes like Bob Woodward get leaked classified information, but because it makes the White House look good, nobody throws him in prison.

I'm sick and fucking tired of an administration that runs a secret, extra-judicial no-fly list with no accountability that selectively punishes minority citizens without even charging them with crimes.

I'm sick and fucking tired of an administration lying through its teeth about its UNPRECEDENTED assassination program, but only once a DOJ memo justifying these assisinations gets leaked, then screams to the high heavens OH NOW WE WANT EVERYONE TO SEE THIS! MAKE SURE TO READ IT!!

I'm sick and fucking tired of an administration that then has the BALLS to refuse to provide the legal rational for its assassination program.

And I'm SICK AND FUCKING TIRED of liberal partisan hacks who defend the president's despicable behavior listed above because HE'S NOT BUSH, THEREFORE, IT'S ALL OK! WE TRUST HIM! HE'S SMARTER AND BETTER! Killing foreigners in secret away from battlefields is OK as long as George Fucking Bush isn't doing it! Hacks like Toure from MSNBC, cunts like Krystal Ball (:meds:) and especially former Mich gov Jennifer Granholm, who had the ovaries to say "we'd be more up in arms if Bush was doing it." No pride, no integrity, nothing. Just licking Obama's fucking taint.

And lastly, I'm sick and fucking tired of this Cult of Personality (TM) that the President has created. Where he is above the law, unaccountable to voters and the public, lies in our faces and then spits in them.

And then has the fucking BALLS to get up during the State of the Union and says he looks forward to being more transparent with Congress.

Fuck you, Obama and your despicable cabinet. FUCK YOU ALL.

Drive By RACK

Screw_Michigan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Just curious , screwey, who did you vote for last November?

Your mother.

So, you did vote for him.

Has he changed any of his tactics since November?

No, he hasn't. So STFU and do as you're told, boy.

smackaholic wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Just curious , screwey, who did you vote for last November?

Your mother.

So, you did vote for him.

Has he changed any of his tactics since November?

No, he hasn't. So STFU and do as you're told, boy.

So how exactly would have any of those tactics been any different under a Mittens administration? I know you're a few cards short of a full deck, but please, try to think.

Screw_Michigan wrote:So how exactly would have any of those tactics been any different under a Mittens administration? I know you're a few cards short of a full deck, but please, try to think.

We both know that the republicrats aren't as different as they pretend, but, there are a few differences. Mitt actually does have some sort of business experience. 6 months as a paper boy when I was 12 gives me more business experience then the jug earred dolt you voted for twice. Also, as much as you can claim to know exactly what mitt would do, barry has already did it to you and you just gargled "thank you sir, may I have another" between jizz shots down your gullet.

The really frustrating thing is that you and I are prolly not that far apart politically and we have a shit ton of company. Some of us lean lib, some conservative and we pull the lever accordingly even though we'd both likely vote for a viable libertarian. And
as long as our fukked up presidential election system remains in place, little is likely to change. If we went to a system, not unlike many around the world where there is a runoff election in the event of no outright majority winner, that could change. Unfortunately the fox running the hen house will let that happen when hell freezes over.

smackaholic wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:So how exactly would have any of those tactics been any different under a Mittens administration? I know you're a few cards short of a full deck, but please, try to think.

The really frustrating thing is that you and I are prolly not that far apart politically and we have a shit ton of company. Some of us lean lib, some conservative and we pull the lever accordingly even though we'd both likely vote for a viable libertarian. And
as long as our fukked up presidential election system remains in place, little is likely to change. If we went to a system, not unlike many around the world where there is a runoff election in the event of no outright majority winner, that could change. Unfortunately the fox running the hen house will let that happen when hell freezes over.

That's worthy of a rack.

88 wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't BHO win a clear majority of the popular and electoral college vote, twice? Where are you going with this, smackaholic?

Yes, he did win a majority, but, change the rules as I stated and one hell of a lot of us will change our vote. Until then, many of us, on the left and right will toe the party line thinking that it is the lesser of two evils.

I would settle for the system we technically have in place, but, don't follow. You know that piece of toilet paper some old dead slave ownin' white folks wrote a few years back. Lobbying is only a problem if the lobbyist can get laws passed in his favor. If his lobbying was met by "sorry, I don't have the power to pass that law" those fukks would pack up and go home.

A good start at fixing the way things are done would be to repeal the 17th Amendment and return the Senate to the states. I don't have the details to show, but I read that if states allotted their electoral college votes by congressional districts like a couple states do and not a winner take all, Romney would have been elected. As it stands now, the Dems start off right out of the gate with all the electoral votes of both California and New York. Puts the GOP playing catch up every election.

Wolfman wrote:A good start at fixing the way things are done would be to repeal the 17th Amendment and return the Senate to the states. I don't have the details to show, but I read that if states allotted their electoral college votes by congressional districts like a couple states do and not a winner take all, Romney would have been elected. As it stands now, the Dems start off right out of the gate with all the electoral votes of both California and New York. Puts the GOP playing catch up every election.

That's just sour grapes over your party losing.

The problem is that the voters are continually having to choose between two candidates that most voters didn't feel like they had any say in. We're stuck with the lesser of two evils ever year instead of ever getting a quality candidate from either party. I think if the extreme wings of both parties had less influence in who the candidates are the quality of the candidates would increase while voter apathy would decrease.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Wolfman wrote:A good start at fixing the way things are done would be to repeal the 17th Amendment and return the Senate to the states. I don't have the details to show, but I read that if states allotted their electoral college votes by congressional districts like a couple states do and not a winner take all, Romney would have been elected. As it stands now, the Dems start off right out of the gate with all the electoral votes of both California and New York. Puts the GOP playing catch up every election.

That's just sour grapes over your party losing.

I can see how you might think that way. But a proportional system would really be quite appropriate for a state like California that's really two states. Other than LA, virtually all of Southern CA votes GOP and other than a few podunk blue-collar towns, all of Northern CA votes Democrat. Yet because our state awards all electoral votes to the winner, it goes "D" every year that Walter Mondale isn't running.

That not only discourages a significant percentage of the populace from voting, but means that Presidential candidates don't give two shits about the state, resulting in us receiving minimal federal dollars for things like roads and infrastructure.

OCmike wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Wolfman wrote:A good start at fixing the way things are done would be to repeal the 17th Amendment and return the Senate to the states. I don't have the details to show, but I read that if states allotted their electoral college votes by congressional districts like a couple states do and not a winner take all, Romney would have been elected. As it stands now, the Dems start off right out of the gate with all the electoral votes of both California and New York. Puts the GOP playing catch up every election.

That's just sour grapes over your party losing.

I can see how you might think that way. But a proportional system would really be quite appropriate for a state like California that's really two states. Other than LA, virtually all of Southern CA votes GOP and other than a few podunk blue-collar towns, all of Northern CA votes Democrat. Yet because our state awards all electoral votes to the winner, it goes "D" every year that Walter Mondale isn't running.

That not only discourages a significant percentage of the populace from voting, but means that Presidential candidates don't give two shits about the state, resulting in us receiving minimal federal dollars for things like roads and infrastructure.

And yet by the time California's polls close the Presidential election is usually already decided.

Obama DID win the popular vote by a pretty wide margin. Allocating electoral college votes by Congressional district would just give the state legislatures even more incentive to gerrymander their districts.

Wolfman wrote:A good start at fixing the way things are done would be to repeal the 17th Amendment and return the Senate to the states. I don't have the details to show, but I read that if states allotted their electoral college votes by congressional districts like a couple states do and not a winner take all, Romney would have been elected. As it stands now, the Dems start off right out of the gate with all the electoral votes of both California and New York. Puts the GOP playing catch up every election.

And the Republicans start off right out of the gate with Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana and Arizona.

So what's your point?