obama. . This, my friend, is called an Everlasting Gobstopper


Anonymous comments allowed.
#14 - TehBlackfire (09/14/2012) [-]
Quick, time for presidential pics!
#78 - malifauxdeux ONLINE (09/14/2012) [-]
Anyone ever notice how Conservatives always cry out for smaller government and that it's not the government's job to create employment, but then bitch and moan about how Obama hasn't completely solved he unemployment problem yet?
#81 to #78 - normancollins (09/14/2012) [-]
He hasn't even put us on track to recovery.
#106 to #81 - malifauxdeux ONLINE (09/14/2012) [-]
Lol, yeah, that's why every credible source says that the economy is recovering.
#86 to #81 - trigondarkthree (09/14/2012) [-]
well... stimulus definitely helped
#87 to #86 - normancollins (09/14/2012) [-]
Oh god. Please stop right now.
#91 to #89 - normancollins (09/14/2012) [-]
Obama's recovery is the worst is U.S. history.
#92 to #91 - trigondarkthree (09/14/2012) [-]
any evidence for that?
#94 to #92 - normancollins (09/14/2012) [-]
https://twitter dot com/i/#!/kesgardner/media/slideshow?url=pic.twitter.com%2F5UcUxpTU
User avatar #124 to #78 - lilnuggetbob (09/15/2012) [-]
the goverment doesnt make jobs.....people do, the goverment sees those jobs and taxes the hell out of them untill they are gone
#125 to #78 - nengcaste **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#142 to #125 - malifauxdeux ONLINE (09/15/2012) [-]
It's really not what they think though.
#143 to #142 - nengcaste **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#121 - unoriginalhipster (09/15/2012) [-]
MFW politics on the internet.
MFW politics on the internet.
#110 - lefish (09/14/2012) [-]
If you want to attack Obama, do it with facts instead of making **** up. He's been ******* great for the economy. He's also signed an executive order allowing American citizens to be imprisoned indefinitely without trial. If you don't like Obama, that's fine. You bring facts and we can have a real discussion. If you just want to make **** up, then **** you.
User avatar #122 to #110 - lilnuggetbob (09/15/2012) [-]
"He's been ******* great for the economy" not one bit, he has done..... decently, but he could of done a much better job, also of jobs HAVE been lost, yes he inherited a bad economy, but that doesnt mean you try to institute higher taxes and social programs, that is the opposite of what you do, you lower taxes, so people can make/get jobs, and be ABLE to pay the ******* taxes.
User avatar #126 to #122 - droysters (09/15/2012) [-]
If Mitt Romney pays less taxes than Al Capone did (who went to jail for tax evasion) you don't lower the taxes. Raise taxes on people that can actually afford to spend more money a.k.a the 1%. Obama could have been amazing for the economy, if not for the obstructionists in congress. He couldn't get **** done, so that's why he hasn't been the best.
User avatar #128 to #126 - lilnuggetbob (09/15/2012) [-]
If you tax the job makers then there will be no jobs, sometime you democrats think weirdly, lets say there is a poor person and a rich person, the poor person makes 500$ a month with 4% taxes, and the rich person makes 2,000,000$ a month, the poor person gets taxed 20$ a month, wile the rich person gets taxed 80,000$ a month, sometimes i think that you guys think that the poor person gets taxed 80,000$ a month and the rich guy gets taxed 20$ a month......
User avatar #129 to #128 - BerwindTwentyFour (09/15/2012) [-]
The 1% for the most part pay little to no taxes with all the tax cuts available. so they're not even paying the 35% that was set for them now. And most of the people that own the big companies are keeping more money for themselves than the actual company owns and distributes to it's employees.
User avatar #135 to #129 - lilnuggetbob (09/15/2012) [-]
- Sorry im taking so long to reply
And of the big Companys don't pay taxes, then make them.
User avatar #137 to #128 - droysters (09/15/2012) [-]
Job makers? Really?

Anyhow, there is now way you can spend 2 mil a month. That's a **** ton of money. On the other hand, $500 isnt that much. An average american spends about $40 a day, but that varies. If someone is poor, they need every dollar they can get. When you make over $60,000 a day, you have money to spare. If the government takes a bigger chunk out that 60k a day, then we take less money than those who have little.
User avatar #127 to #122 - BerwindTwentyFour (09/15/2012) [-]
Well. for one Jobs haven't been lost. Unemployment rates are going down. and if taxes are lowered the economy can only get worse- we couldn't pay our debts and the government wouldn't be able to step in with safety nets (such as unemployment checks). The government can't raise taxes either, because people won't be ready for it and the economy will get worse that way too. If anything taxes should be kept the same. The only problem is, the taxes will go up again in January, because bushes tax cuts will end.
#141 to #127 - burningdemons **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #130 to #127 - lilnuggetbob (09/15/2012) [-]
Lets see how to stop the fast growth of the national debt by alot, no we dont raise taxes so that everyone loses jobs silly, we cut government spending, and lower taxes so that people can afford to make small businesses and pay their taxes......
User avatar #133 to #130 - BerwindTwentyFour (09/15/2012) [-]
Lowering taxes is what caused the problem in the first place silly
User avatar #134 to #133 - lilnuggetbob (09/15/2012) [-]
ok then lets raise taxes! So that way big companys have to lay off more people to be able to pay the HUGE taxes we give them! PS thats how my dad and most of his friends last his job
User avatar #139 to #134 - BerwindTwentyFour (09/15/2012) [-]
Well taxes haven't actually gone up at all in the last few years (except state taxes, which don't really benefit the economy anyway), tax rates have remained the same. Taxes should be raised but only gradually. say .5%-1% a year. Since a major increase will kill everyone out.

Anyway. it's the upper 1% that actually matters in what I'm saying here, just one person in that 1% has more money than most middle class combined. and that one person doesn't have to pay taxes. Why? because he's rich and has more access to tax cuts than we do. He owns a business, but he doesn't care to share his wealth with his business. he keeps it to himself. and that money he has is never put back into the system again. if the tax cuts are removed and gradually raised. it forces him to give back to the system.

I'm not saying all taxes need to be raised. I mean middle class can barely afford it as is. Just those who actually have the money needed to pay them.
#109 - luderudecrude ONLINE (09/14/2012) [-]
The republican heavey congress is what hjas stopped every job creating bill Obama has tried to pass, yet he has still created over 4.5 million jobs/ god damn republicans and their propaganda lies piss me off
#46 - anon (09/14/2012) [-]
Haha its funny because Romney actually has a indisputable record of jobstopping, and Obama doesn't. But Romney has only been allowed to grim reaper jobs on a small scale. But give him the presidency....
#63 to #46 - chazzxz (09/14/2012) [-]
Romney has created a much larger amount of jobs the he has destroyed.
User avatar #67 to #63 - helenabeat (09/14/2012) [-]
User avatar #1 - rollertoaster (09/14/2012) [-]
I support Obama and found this hilarious
>Inb4 I support hilarious and found this Obama
User avatar #8 to #1 - trojanmannn (09/14/2012) [-]
I support found and hilarious this Obama
User avatar #22 to #1 - lupislord (09/14/2012) [-]
and found support this hilarious I Obama
#11 to #1 - thepyras (09/14/2012) [-]
You might have been inb4 it, but you couldn't stop the onslaught.
You might have been inb4 it, but you couldn't stop the onslaught.
User avatar #3 to #1 - pyrothermal (09/14/2012) [-]
I Obama hilarious and found this support.
User avatar #62 - cptcrunchy (09/14/2012) [-]
Romney isn't any different then. He buys out no-name businesses, liquidates the profits and then fires the employees. The dude is a spoiled scumbag.
User avatar #66 to #62 - frankieforward (09/14/2012) [-]
He had more businesses creating jobs then he did "liquidating" them.
User avatar #68 to #66 - breadbasket (09/14/2012) [-]
#74 to #68 - anon (09/14/2012) [-]
what an intelligent response
User avatar #138 to #74 - frankieforward (09/15/2012) [-]
its sad when you get down voted for facts... funny junk at its best
User avatar #83 - kieranbaker (09/14/2012) [-]
not trying to start political flame war but he didn't cause the recession and he has created 4.5 million jobs
#70 - anon (09/14/2012) [-]
Oh any funny on funnyjunk?

Nope just ******* politics
User avatar #93 - Fgner (09/14/2012) [-]
Oh yes, let's bring politics, one of those things in the real world that cause us stress, which is one of the reasons we come to the internet to begin with, TO THE INTERNET. I'm suprised this got so many thumbs. People on the internet are all socialist, democratic, college kids, or European.

Europeans, I mean you no offense, but shut the **** up when it comes to American politics, we are a huge country compared to any of you, and Sweden may be freaking amazing, but amplify Sweden's size by a few dozen and the same system wouldn't work for **** .

To the socialists, read that last statement. Socialism can't work on a large scale unless we are all utopians. There will always be lazy ******* that will ruin it by not doing their part.

Democrats, no, just any ******* American out there, I don't give a **** who you are, but you aren't better than the other party, you aren't worse. You are just americans, stop voting because the other person isn't on your party. Jesus ******* Christ, I doubt half of you "knowledgable voters" don't know the speaker of the house or even 2 of the judges without using Google.

And College Kids: Don't vote. You are young and stupid. I'm one of you. 99% of you don't watch news. I bet the only reason you really like Obama is because he's black and "young" and democratic. When you are done being know it all college kids and get your head out of your ass in 10 years, then feel free to give politics a try.

Red thumbs, I embrace you dearly.
#96 to #93 - anon (09/14/2012) [-]
Offending Europeans about politcs?

You do realize it all started in Greece. Secondly you can't judge the whole group of college kids on one view, what about the college kids that study social studies and have to watch the news? Third, socialism was actually created for a big country, but indeed it didn't work out in russia because they lacked basic recourses.

Red thumb for being a complete idiot, just give better arguments next time. I embrace the anymous hate c:
User avatar #97 to #96 - Fgner (09/14/2012) [-]
1) I meant no offense if I did. I even said no offense, and I meant that sincerely.
2) What are you talking about? Democracy started in Greece? Well, that's not even true. Some of the first forms of government were democracy, because when you have a small tribe, it makes a lot of sense for everyone to have a say instead of let one person rule. And anyway, why does it matter that it started in Greece? Greece was an empire back then, not a single European country in the 21st century.
3) Sure I can, just like I can judge a hundred black guys in a room. On average college kids think they are all that simply because they are in college. They think it makes them immediately smarter and their opinion mean more. Kids involved in political science? Maybe. Informed college kids? Maybe. But that's MAYBE 5% of the college kids in America.
4) Socialism wasn't created for russia. It's an idea. And the first person to think of it was a French man named Henri de Saint-Simon. Want some better arguement? Socialism needs utopians to work. Otherwise human nature kicks in. An experiment was once done. College students were told that they are going to receive the same grade as the average. No matter how bad or good they did. The first test the average was a B, then a C, then the third dropped to an F. Why? Because the try hards stopped trying when it accomplished nothing, and the non try hards just stopped because they figured the try hards would do it for them. AND THEN ALL the kids complained about their Fs to the university, none of them taking responsibility in the fact that pretty much not a single one did a thing to get a good grade anyway. Yes. That's a very, very dumbed down way of describing socialism, but the basic principle applies here. Socialism doesn't work with NORMAL human beings and NORMAL human behavior. I'd love the idea of socialism if it could work properly.
#105 to #97 - yarson (09/14/2012) [-]
1) Sorry for that though.
2) Most tribes had a leader, because humans want power, so in smaller tribes, the strongest person had the power. The point I am trying to make here is that, in the western world, most is based on the concept of free thinking. Just because someone is from a smaller country doesn't mean they don't understand the consquences of being a big country.
3)We probably won't know if that 5% , there are no statistics known about it, so we can better drop this one before it ends up in endless rambling. Let's just call the newspaper reading students the minority.
4)Did I ever state it was CREATED in Russia, I just pointed out that it didn't work out.
If you want something like that to work out, there will be no freedom.

Nothing more to say though, sorry for the first furious reaction. A small misjudgement I made out of your first comment.
User avatar #108 to #105 - Fgner (09/14/2012) [-]
1) No problem.
2) Most hunter gatherer societies were actually democratic, some had "elders" that they went to for knowledge and such. I'm talking very small tribes at the beginning of humanity. And you'd have the alpha male warrior and such of course. But there's no point of having a king in a society of a whopping 20ish people. How would you make people obey? Beat one of them, great you just lost one of your people and you made the other 18 want to murder you, which they probably will.
3) Agreed.
4) That was my bad of course. I misinterpreted your comment.

All good man. No hard feelings.
User avatar #99 to #96 - psydoc (09/14/2012) [-]
That's interesting that you (at least appear to) put social studies above business, medicine, and law.
User avatar #102 to #99 - Fgner (09/14/2012) [-]
I'd put law, business and political studies over the sciences, really. Just because the latter tend to care more about their studies and not the petty argument of whether to vote in a giant douche or a turd sandwich.
User avatar #104 to #102 - psydoc (09/14/2012) [-]
If I'm being really frank, I'd like to see more people with business background in the legislature, and probably a few more doctors. Business people because you learn how to make an organization effective, how to measure success, and benchmark achievement and such, and a few more doctors, because I think we need some expertise in that field when laws are being made.

It also seems to me that teachers, artists, and scientists tend to lean left because their work is largely supported by the government, and they'll support whoever will spend more on them. Lawyers also seem to lean left because the left doesn't' support caps on lawsuits.
User avatar #107 to #104 - Fgner (09/14/2012) [-]
The way I see it politics shouldn't be a career. You shouldn't really be paid (much) for it. It's like jury duty, you do it for the benefit of your country. I'd rather great men in all sorts of fields that know what the people and country need get put in based on their character and beliefs, than politicians go in based on how well they can ******** their way out of a can and attack the other candidate. I agree with you completely.

And yes, that's completely true. Except scientists, scientists usually hate all politicians because nomatter who is in it doesn't matter. Maybe in some fields where one party going in would mean your field might get cut based on beliefs, but other than that not really.

I like you.
User avatar #112 to #107 - psydoc (09/15/2012) [-]
You know, almost all of the scientists I've know have also worked in education... so that might be biasing my opinion.

I don't really think politics should be a career either. I'd rather see people come from backgrounds where they have a record of success or failure you can look at. In politics, no matter what people do, no matter what happens, they always claim success.

When we elect someone to congress, they vote on everything, but they're really only heavily involved in whatever committee they're on. So we vote in people who we like then they wind up on committees that write legislation for stuff they know nothing about. It just seems like something needs to be fixed there.
User avatar #114 to #112 - Fgner (09/15/2012) [-]
That last statement isn't true. Congressmen are allowed to vote "present" on anything. AKA they don't vote, just say they were there to listen to everything. Obama voted present on all but ONE bill, which he ran with someone. Not bashing Obama, just an example I know off the top of my head. They don't need to read nor vote on anything, just pretend they're doing something at all. And then they get paid more than most people with unbelievable benefits and get 1/3 of the year of Vacation. Definitely a fair system. The people who decide how the country works rigged it for themselves? No. Blasphemy.
User avatar #118 to #114 - psydoc (09/15/2012) [-]
Well, in Congress you can choose to not vote, but it was in the Illinois state legislature that Obama voted "present". That was one of the troubles Hillary had debating Obama. She had a record that she had to defend, whereas Obama could vote "present" on controversial issues, and say he supports the idea, but had problems with the way the bill was drafted.
#111 to #93 - lefish (09/15/2012) [-]
So the hundreds of thousands of middle aged people who are less educated and more racist and more religious SHOULD vote, but we college kids are too young and stupid?
User avatar #115 to #111 - Fgner (09/15/2012) [-]
^ Thanks for proving my point. You just made yourself into a superior person just because you are young and in college. Just saying.
User avatar #98 to #93 - awesomenessdefined (09/14/2012) [-]
How many pages of your Social Studies Book did you have to go through to make that argument.
User avatar #100 to #98 - Fgner (09/14/2012) [-]
How long did it take you to type that amazing counter argument?
User avatar #103 to #100 - awesomenessdefined (09/14/2012) [-]
It wasn't an argument.
#18 - masterfrog **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #51 - rdangerdash ONLINE (09/14/2012) [-]
I'm not an american and I have no knowledge of politics or how the world outside my bedroom works but I thought Obama had actually created more jobs than Bush. Whatever that means.
#58 to #51 - twistedhirollr **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #23 - demonictoasters (09/14/2012) [-]
Cute considering since he has been in office there has been a significant increase in jobs.
#84 to #23 - normancollins (09/14/2012) [-]
Cute. Since there hasn't
#48 to #23 - koalahauff (09/14/2012) [-]
cute indeed...
All jobs lost from the time Obama took office to "trough" (bottom of recession): .....4,317,000
All jobs gained since "trough": ....4,056,000
Net LOSS in seasonally-adjusted jobs since Obama took office: .... 261,000
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)