Alaska Darin Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Well she does have shapely arms. Or so the networks tell me. That must be worth something.Mean time Obama rolls up his sleeves and go's to work What are we paying this guy for? That's probably the best thing the guy has done since he's been in office. When he's out screwing around, he's not in the office getting **** passed that will cost too much, lower our standard of living, or ship jobs out of the country. That dude should run every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Decadence is the first lady Michelle Obama amazingly taking a gaudy vacation with forty of her friends and family to a five star hotel in Spain while America has a 9.5 unemployment figure and is currently going through the worst recession it it's history. Millions of people have lost their homes in foreclosure. 40 million people are on food stamps, largest ever. And the fact that the American taxpayer is on on the hook for $250,000 of it, which just adds another log to the deficit bonfire that our children and children's children will eventually have to pay off, sickens me to the core... http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/06/mi...king-criticism/ Yes, she should be in the White House 24/7 until the budget is balanced Should Walmart and Verizon executives be doing something to end the recession too, or should they be shamed by their activities too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Well she does have shapely arms. Or so the networks tell me. That must be worth something.Mean time Obama rolls up his sleeves and go's to work What are we paying this guy for? Well, Barry can check off the "I want to play ball with and NBA all star team" from his bucket list. Does he really think we'll believe that he did this for the few wounded troops that were on hand? He is a selfish arrogant elitist prick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Good thing Bush never vacationed while American troops he sent to die were, well, dying cry, cry, cry rightwing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Good thing Bush never vacationed while American troops he sent to die were, well, dying cry, cry, cry rightwing You'd have to expect this after 8 years of left-wing handwringing over Bush's excesses, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 You'd have to expect this after 8 years of left-wing handwringing over Bush's excesses, don't you think? You don't understand. Obama would never take all these vacations if Bush didn't do it first. So don't you see...all these vacations are Bush's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushthePile Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado convertible, hot pink, with whale skin hubcaps and all leather cow interior and big brown baby seal eyes for headlights. Yeah! And I'm gonna drive around in that baby at 115 miles an hour, getting 1 mile per gallon, sucking down quarter pounder cheeseburgers from McDonald's in the old-fashioned non- biodegradable Styrofoam containers! And when I'm done suckin' down those grease ball burgers I'm gonna wipe my mouth on the American flag and then toss the Styrofoam containers right out the side.... ....and there ain't a God-damned thing you can do about it. Because we got the BOMBS OKAAAY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Good thing Bush never vacationed while American troops he sent to die were, well, dying cry, cry, cry rightwing Is that because you don't like crying alone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 My only complaint is that the democrats keep harping on "the rich aren't paying their fair share of taxes," but it seems the populace is stupid and isn't realizing that the democratic politicians are all RICH AND NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES! (according to them). If the dems really want to show how much "better" they are, why not get together and say, "We believe in what we say -- and therefore are not going to take a salary for the next year. All of that money will go towards paying down the deficit. Republicans, are you going to follow suit?" But that will NEVER happen. They talk about all the poor people, pretend that they're in that same class and that they want to help the poor people, but do nothing about it other than "take from rich other than themselves." Mark Dayton, a trust-fund baby who hasn't ever had a job, has been campaigning on that very topic - "If you make $150,000 or more a year, you're making more than 90% of Minnesotans! And you need to pay your fair share of taxes!" Give me a break. Here's a couple of his advertising spots. The second one is priceless -- "Make the rich pay more so you can pay less!" I guess it worked for Obama... http ://minnesotaindependent.com/60935/in-n...share-of-taxes Hopefully he'll lose the primary - there's one woman running that attacked him saying something like, "A police officer married to a nurse is NOT a rich family, even though they make $150,000." Uhm,... ? I mean /dev/null's post was fully retarded and did not deserve a response. I don't think your post here is retarded, but I think it's highly inaccurate. Fareed Zakaria, Bill Gates, Jon Stewart, Warren Buffett (for some examples) are all very wealthy men who have publicly said they would have no problem paying higher taxes, and have encouraged the government to raise taxes on their bracket. Raise taxes for the wealthy mean all wealthy including those who are the "the democratic politicians are all RICH AND NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Uhm,... ? I mean /dev/null's post was fully retarded and did not deserve a response. I don't think your post here is retarded, but I think it's highly inaccurate. Fareed Zakaria, Bill Gates, Jon Stewart, Warren Buffett (for some examples) are all very wealthy men who have publicly said they would have no problem paying higher taxes, and have encouraged the government to rise taxes on their bracket. Raise taxes for the wealthy mean all wealthy including those who are the "the democratic politicians are all RICH AND NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES". How rich of them. Just out of curiosity, if these dick bags are so willing to give money to the Feds, why don't they? They can write a check for more. Maybe they're full of ****. It's also rich that a bunch of multi millionaires and billionaires are willing to have taxes raised on "the rich" when the rich is classified as people making a pittance of what these guys make. Even John Stewart probably makes at least 20 times the annual salary of the majority of "rich" he's speaking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 I mean /dev/null's post was fully retarded and did not deserve a response Explain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Explain "You would say that Laura Bush should not spend so much money" "No I wouldn't, and I didn't" "Yes you would" "No I wouldn't" "YES YOU WOULD" "NO I WOULDN'T" ... ya that's a really productive conversation right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted August 10, 2010 Author Share Posted August 10, 2010 Yes, she should be in the White House 24/7 until the budget is balanced Should Walmart and Verizon executives be doing something to end the recession too, or should they be shamed by their activities too? I don't know if you realize this, but Walmart and Verizon's travel and security expenses are not paid for by us taxpayers. Also, we Amercians have had enough of being preached to "tighten our belts" her to by her husband, then two years into the worst recession in history she decides to thumb her nose at all of the poor saps. I sure hope she is "proud" of herself. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=96231055 "Bush has dug a deep hole. It's going to take some time to dig us out. We're all going to need to tighten our belts a little bit. We're all going to need to sacrifice," the senator says. http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/obam...uestion-546481/ "First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants Recession, Depression, What, Michelle Worry?" "One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 How rich of them. Just out of curiosity, if these dick bags are so willing to give money to the Feds, why don't they? They can write a check for more. Maybe they're full of ****. Why the !@#$ should they give their money to the government if no one else is willing to? They would put themselves at a strategic competitive disadvantage in whatever they want to accomplish in life as they would have significantly less resources to accomplish these things as compared to those who did not give away money. That would be stupid, and these men are obviously not stupid. .. and for the record, Bill Gates and Buffet have pledged to give away lots of their wealth to charity after they pass away. It's also rich that a bunch of multi millionaires and billionaires are willing to have taxes raised on "the rich" when the rich is classified as people making a pittance of what these guys make. Even John Stewart probably makes at least 20 times the annual salary of the majority of "rich" he's speaking for. The four men were examples. Not a comprehensive list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Why the !@#$ should they give their money to the government if no one else is willing to? They would put themselves at a strategic competitive disadvantage in whatever they want to accomplish in life as they would have significantly less resources to accomplish these things as compared to those who did not give away money. That would be stupid, and these men are obviously not stupid. .. and for the record, Bill Gates and Buffet have pledged to give away lots of their wealth to charity after they pass away. If they're so concerned that the government get more money it seems only logical that they contribute as much as they see fit. Why should it matter what someone else is paying? That's what you guys don't get about the concept of freedom. That you pursue what you find important. These guys go out and get their brownie points in their big liberal hypocrite social circles talking about how much they love paying into the bureaucracy, then pay accountants to get every possible loophole they can find to pay as little as need be. As far as your billionaire buddies, interesting that they're leaving their money to private charities and not government. Plus it may not have occurred to you, but an income tax taxes what you make. Buffett, Gates and the rest of that crowd are already among the richest people in the world. Substantial hikes in income and capital gains taxes keeps others from getting up to their level. And Stewart's just a god damn dipsht who's made a career of mischaracterizing news stories, and making funny faces. If you had any intellectual honesty you’d hold him in the exact same esteem you do Andrew Breitbart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 If they're so concerned that the government get more money it seems only logical that they contribute as much as they see fit. Why should it matter what someone else is paying? Stop being so stupid. You are demanding that rich liberals give all their money to the government. Come on man, come back to reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Uhm,... ? I mean /dev/null's post was fully retarded and did not deserve a response. I don't think your post here is retarded, but I think it's highly inaccurate. Fareed Zakaria, Bill Gates, Jon Stewart, Warren Buffett (for some examples) are all very wealthy men who have publicly said they would have no problem paying higher taxes, and have encouraged the government to raise taxes on their bracket. Raise taxes for the wealthy mean all wealthy including those who are the "the democratic politicians are all RICH AND NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES". Maybe if old Warren would just pay what he owes there would be no need to raise the [inapplicable to him] rates. Do as I say. not as I do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Maybe if old Warren would just pay what he owes there would be no need to raise the [inapplicable to him] rates.Do as I say. not as I do What part of the term "competitive disadvantage" do you not understand. Is Buffet not a businessman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Stop being so stupid. You are demanding that rich liberals give all their money to the government. Come on man, come back to reality. That's weak, even for you. Clearly that's not what I said, but I guess you couldn't refute that so you write this crap. The point being, if you're the one who wants government spending never ending sums of money and you're well within the resources then you should pay more. That's the fundamental problem with you guys. You have one guy minding his own damn business, contributing society and doing his own thing. Then you have this dickless busy body who can't be satisfied with his own life, who has to go meddle in everyone else's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Uhm,... ? I mean /dev/null's post was fully retarded and did not deserve a response. I don't think your post here is retarded, but I think it's highly inaccurate. Fareed Zakaria, Bill Gates, Jon Stewart, Warren Buffett (for some examples) are all very wealthy men who have publicly said they would have no problem paying higher taxes, and have encouraged the government to raise taxes on their bracket. Raise taxes for the wealthy mean all wealthy including those who are the "the democratic politicians are all RICH AND NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES". What part of the term "competitive disadvantage" do you not understand. Is Buffet not a businessman? WSJ article- The credits are virtually worthless to Fannie Mae and require the company to take losses each quarter as their value declines. Companies such as Berkshire Hathaway and Goldman Sachs could use them to offset federal tax expenses. Do you see much beyond the end of your nose? Buffet has been using every trick in the book to avoid tax's for decades. But sure as soon as the rates are raised he will pony up and pay his share. But of course that would put him at a "competitive disadvantage" so back to the loopholes. Do you think about the real meaning of what people say, or even think at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts