Upload
Login or register

MuahahaOfLore

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 27
Date Signed Up:4/05/2010
Location:NJ USA
Stats
Content Ranking:#23
Comment Ranking:#138
Highest Content Rank:#6
Highest Comment Rank:#30
Content Thumbs: 592959 total,  634377 ,  41418
Comment Thumbs: 95140 total,  102098 ,  6958
Content Level Progress: 42.55% (4255/10000)
Level 345 Content: Sold Soul → Level 346 Content: Sold Soul
Comment Level Progress: 80.1% (801/1000)
Level 379 Comments: Immortal → Level 380 Comments: Arch Mage
Subscribers:123
Content Views:25582364
Times Content Favorited:43357 times
Total Comments Made:8972
FJ Points:457640
Favorite Tags: cat (2) | with (2)

latest user's comments

#183 - Crooked Hillary  [+] (3 replies) 08/20/2016 on Trumper Comp18 -1
User avatar
#184 - nemesisapoc (08/20/2016) [-]
...yes... I get your joke. I'm not sure you got mine.

Google "acute triangle."
User avatar
#185 - MuahahaOfLore (08/20/2016) [-]
I see nothing out of place, all pictures of triangles with no angle over 90 degrees.
#223 - crazycommando (08/21/2016) [-]
#159 - adblockplus  [+] (2 replies) 08/20/2016 on Trumper Comp18 +1
User avatar
#219 - ayrendil (08/21/2016) [-]
Do they have that for android? Really only watch youtube on my phone.
User avatar
#220 - MuahahaOfLore (08/21/2016) [-]
look it up

or use adblockpro
#158 - Doubling the debt is enough. Obama Care is enough Nego…  [+] (14 replies) 08/20/2016 on Trumper Comp18 +6
#225 - crazycommando (08/21/2016) [-]
I like your style.
User avatar
#191 - zomaru (08/20/2016) [-]
Most of those are in no way his fault
Next you're going to tell me he is the reason our gas prices are so low, so its his fault Saudi Arabia's economy is in shambles
#186 - lolollo (08/20/2016) [-]
Except...

> Doubling the debt is enough.

Resolving a hilariously big debt like the one we have is almost impossible for the president to do alone.
Resolving a hilariously big debt like the one we have, with the passive propensity to increase as time goes on, is legitimately impossible for him to do alone.
He's still resolving a debt which was established outside of his presidency, which is the epitome of not his fault.

> Obama Care is enough

You mean the one policy he was able to pass through a congress which otherwise vowed to never let him pass anything ever...right...now let's think of the reasons why you, as someone who's adamant at hating Obama, would not find that as hilariously suspicious as it very much is.

> Negotiating with terrorists is enough

Pic related

> Destabilizing the middle east is enough

And here I thought that was Hillarys fault...make up your mind... actually, you don't need to, because we already know who's fault it is...it's the person who put us in the middle east in a first place.

> Pulling out quick was the problem

You mean that thing that didnt/hasn't happened? I think I can see your concern...

> Having the slowest recovery in history is enough

Did he double the debt, or is he having a slow recovery?

> Tripling those on foodstamps is enough

You mean that thing that's only a problem to you and others who think like you?

> Creating the bipartisanship that never existed is enough

Now I know you're just being and idiot and not this point...

> Having more people unemployed than anytime besides the great depression is enough

And this one is just provably false...
#203 - terminalinfinity (08/20/2016) [-]
He's still resolving a debt which was established outside of his presidency, which is the epitome of not his fault.

He's not resolving anything. Every single one of his budgets have had deficts bigger than the largest Bush Deficit (~400 Billion)

We haven't paid down the debt one penny. And this is in spite of the fact that he ended the Iraq war which was the biggest reason for the Bush Deficits. So the reason for the deficits is gone, but a larger deficit continues.



actually, you don't need to, because we already know who's fault it is...it's the person who put us in the middle east in a first place.

You mean Carter? The one who started BSing the taliban in the first place in order to support them in a proxy war against the Soviet Union? Thereby laying the seeds for Osama to rise to power when we ditched them?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJTv2nFjMBk

>Did he double the debt, or is he having a slow recovery?

Both. You can't spend your way out of debt and you cant spend your way into prosperity. Your economic knowledge is showing in the fact that your think the two are inversely correlated.
User avatar
#213 - lolollo (08/21/2016) [-]
> He's not resolving anything. Every single one of his budgets have had deficts bigger than the largest Bush Deficit (~400 Billion)

How is that in any way true when the only thing he's been able to do is pass Obamacare, which is a republicanized she'll of what it was meant to be all because of congress, aka "also not his fault"?

> We haven't paid down the debt one penny. And this is in spite of the fact that he ended the Iraq war which was the biggest reason for the Bush Deficits. So the reason for the deficits is gone, but a larger deficit continues.

He ended the Iraq war, which was called for forever, and had absolutely no effect on the economy because the effect that has is from all of the soldiers coming home expecting jobs, which didn't happen because they all went literally anywhere else.

> You mean Carter? The one who started BSing the taliban in the first place in order to support them in a proxy war against the Soviet Union? Thereby laying the seeds for Osama to rise to power when we ditched them?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJTv2nFjMBk

You did a whole lot of "rhetorical question" asking and not a whole lot of "answering"...

>Both. You can't spend your way out of debt and you cant spend your way into prosperity. Your economic knowledge is showing in the fact that your think the two are inversely correlated.

Because they are...increasing the debt is the exact opposite of resolving that crisis.
#217 - terminalinfinity (08/21/2016) [-]
>Hasn't been able to pass anything
Nigga, every budget for the last 10 years has been the democrat budget dating back to the Bush era when Democrats took control of the Senate. Both the Republicans and Democrats put out a budget every year and only one gets passed.

This motherfucker had a supermajority in BOTH chambers for his first two years of office. Get out of here with that can't pass anything bullshit.

>Ending the Iraq war had no effect on the economy
Yeah it doesn't have any effect when you take the money you were spending each year on war and spend it on other shit rather than using the money to pay down the debt. He ended the war but kept spending at the same level.

Suddenly not spending 400 billion a year would be impossible NOT to have an effect on the economy

The question was not rhetorical. It was a specific inquiry into clarification of what you meant.


>Because they are...increasing the debt is the exact opposite of resolving that crisis.
Right, an you asked whether they were increasing the debt OR making the crisis worse by prolonging the recovery. The two are synonymous. He made the situation worse BY spending more to accelerate the recovery, thereby prolonging the recovery.
User avatar
#218 - lolollo (08/21/2016) [-]
>Nigga, every budget for the last 10 years has been the democrat budget dating back to the Bush era when Democrats took control of the Senate. Both the Republicans and Democrats put out a budget every year and only one gets passed.

So it's congress' fault......that's Obama's fault...how?

>This motherfucker had a supermajority in BOTH chambers for his first two years of office. Get out of here with that can't pass anything bullshit.

He's been trying to pass shit his entire presidency. What the fuck do you mean "He's had a supermajority"? And why do you say that as though all you need is "more than 50% of congress" to pass shit? And lastly, why the fuck are you making it out as though I'm the one who's living under a rock? You're the one who's acting like congress' decisions are the presidents fault you said "dating back to the Bush administration...so...by your logic...it's his fault. and that having a simple majority is enough to pass shit in congress.

>Yeah it doesn't have any effect when you take the money you were spending each year on war and spend it on other shit rather than using the money to pay down the debt. He ended the war but kept spending at the same level. Suddenly not spending 400 billion a year would be impossible NOT to have an effect on the economy.

You dont...you don't know what actually happened...do you? Or how a national debt gets paid for that matter...do you? HINT: It's not to just ship money overseas...

>The question was not rhetorical. It was a specific inquiry into clarification of what you meant.

>Right, an you asked whether they were increasing the debt OR making the crisis worse by prolonging the recovery. The two are synonymous. He made the situation worse BY spending more to accelerate the recovery, thereby prolonging the recovery.

No...you said, or in the very least what was said, was "Having the slowest recovery in history is enough".

If you're slowly recovering...you're still recovering. You're making it better...NOT worse.

To say that he's slowly recovering AND doubling the national debt is a contradiction.
#221 - terminalinfinity (08/21/2016) [-]
>So it's congress' fault......that's Obama's fault...how?

1. Because Obama has the ultimate authority to veto the bill if he doesn't like it. Including opposing budgets.
2. Because the president gets to submit a proposed budget agenda which outlines what he wants done, in which, his party adapts and uses as the proposed budget. So yes, the budgets from the democrats the last 8 years have been from Obama.


Even the white house website calls its the "PRESIDENTS PROPOSED TOTAL SPENDING BUDGET"
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/proposes-2016-us-budget-total-spending/

The democrats rejected Bush's budget in 07/08 but Obama has gotten every one of his budgets passed

Jesus christ, do some goddamn research about how the system works before you argue like you know ANYTHING.

>What the fuck do you mean "He's had a supermajority"?

As in, his party controlled 60% or more of each chamber for the first two years, and the senate for 6 years. (Until Scott Brown's election in 2010 - Replacing Ted Kennedy)

>And lastly, why the fuck are you making it out as though I'm the one who's living under a rock?

Because if you genuinely think the president has nothing to do with a budgets and that Presidents dont consort with their own party to pass bills, then I think do you do live under a rock.

>You dont...you don't know what actually happened...do you? Or how a national debt gets paid for that matter...do you?

Well I should know, considering I own treasury bonds of various sorts. So I would hope the government isnt shipping the money it owes me overseas.

>No...you said, or in the very least what was said, was "Having the slowest recovery in history is enough

No I am not the original commenter. Read nigga.

Correlation is not always causation. Any decent economy SHOULD rebound from any bubble with some time. Just because you're doing stuff, doesn't mean what you're doing is helping or that any positive effects are because of it. Pouring gasoline on a fire when someone comes along with a fire extinguisher and puts it out doesnt mean the gasoline was helping put out the fire.
User avatar
#226 - lolollo (08/21/2016) [-]
>1. Because Obama has the ultimate authority to veto the bill if he doesn't like it. Including opposing budgets.
2. Because the president gets to submit a proposed budget agenda which outlines what he wants done, in which, his party adapts and uses as the proposed budget. So yes, the budgets from the democrats the last 8 years have been from Obama.

1. Veto has no effect on budget propositions. Budget propositions aren't laws. The president vetoes laws, not treasury decisions.
2. Wrong, no he doesnt. He may get to propose laws which will then influence the budget, it's still at the mercy of congress to pass it...which they wouldnt/didnt.

>Even the white house website calls its the "PRESIDENTS PROPOSED TOTAL SPENDING BUDGET"
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/proposes-2016-us-budget-total-spending/

Did it get passed? Did congress let it through?

>The democrats rejected Bush's budget in 07/08 but Obama has gotten every one of his budgets passed. Jesus christ, do some goddamn research about how the system works before you argue like you know ANYTHING.

All of that is hilariously wrong save for the part on Bush's budget proposal. Obama has gotten Obamacare passed...that's it. You're sitting here scratching your head about how I apparently don't know anything, but that's going to happen when you live in some fantasy world.

>As in, his party controlled 60% or more of each chamber for the first two years, and the senate for 6 years. (Until Scott Brown's election in 2010 - Replacing Ted Kennedy)

Incorrect

>Because if you genuinely think the president has nothing to do with a budgets and that Presidents dont consort with their own party to pass bills, then I think do you do live under a rock.

Strange...because I'm thinking the same thing based on your ridiculous notion that the President has any say in that shit.

>Well I should know, considering I own treasury bonds of various sorts. So I would hope the government isnt shipping the money it owes me overseas.

Look at all of that "doesn't answer my question"!

>No I am not the original commenter. Read nigga.

Look at all of that "doesn't address the concern"!

>Correlation is not always causation. Any decent economy SHOULD rebound from any bubble with some time. Just because you're doing stuff, doesn't mean what you're doing is helping or that any positive effects are because of it. Pouring gasoline on a fire when someone comes along with a fire extinguisher and puts it out doesnt mean the gasoline was helping put out the fire.

Look at all of that "STILL doesn't address the concern"!

Have you considered that maybe...potentially...we've stopped being a "decent economy"? And that doesn't answer the question of how it is you can have a slow improvement of the economic system while somehow doubling the debt.
#228 - terminalinfinity (08/21/2016) [-]
And to answer your question of how we recovered with rising debt, its because the reason we broke in the first place had nothing to do with our national debt, so its recovery wasn't dependent on it either. But weakening other parts of the economy while fixing another just leaves another potential crisis later.

The cause of the economic downturn was the subprime mortgage crisis and the subsequent credit freeze. The subsequent recovery was from property values stabilizing and credit markets returning.

Pumping money into auto companies like GM and Chrysler did NOTHING to help solve this.

The recovery was in spite of spending and government expansion, not because of it

www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/challenges-us-economic-recovery-federal-state-spending
User avatar
#237 - lolollo (08/21/2016) [-]
None of that supports the idea that there were improvements...at all. What improved? What was made better? And then you need to look at "Why did it fail". If it's a case of "Well we gave these businesses money and told them not to be dicks about it" then that's hardly his failt...theres only one way to fix that.

It rhymes with "shoverment roversight".
#227 - terminalinfinity (08/21/2016) [-]
>1. Veto has no effect on budget propositions. Budget propositions aren't laws. The president vetoes laws, not treasury decisions.

The budget is fucking law passed by the chambers, not a decision by the treasury.
The 2015 Budget for reference: www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1314/text


It can and has been vetoed before. Here is Obama threatening to veto a budget IF IT LIMITS SPENDING: www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-ill-veto-any-budget-if-it-limits-spending/article/2571507

So yeah, tell me more about how the president has no influence over budgets.
>Strange...because I'm thinking the same thing based on your ridiculous notion that the President has any say in that shit.

Strange that even Obama thinks he has a say in this shit by threatening to veto and budget he doesnt like once republicans take control. Weird huh?
>>No I am not the original commenter. Read nigga.
>Look at all of that "doesn't address the concern"!
Because you were replying to someone who isn't me, so its not my place to respond to a statement I didn't make? Oh how dare I not take up for a point I didn't make.

>Have you considered that maybe...potentially...we've stopped being a "decent economy"?
Did you think maybe your subjective analysis isn't a valid point? And that you need factual evidence of cause in effect in addition to claims in a debate?
User avatar
#236 - lolollo (08/21/2016) [-]
>The budget is fucking law passed by the chambers, not a decision by the treasury.
The 2015 Budget for reference: www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1314/text It can and has been vetoed before. Here is Obama threatening to veto a budget IF IT LIMITS SPENDING: www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-ill-veto-any-budget-if-it-limits-spending/article/2571507 So yeah, tell me more about how the president has no influence over budgets.

That first source you gave me has Obama listen nowhere in the process, not even in the introduction of the bill. And for his capacity to veto a bill, that has got to he the most indirect involvement in the entire process of lawmaking. There's a HUGE difference between the president writing out a proposition for Congress to then vote on and the president simply vetoing a bill congress wants to do.

>Strange that even Obama thinks he has a say in this shit by threatening to veto and budget he doesnt like once republicans take control. Weird huh?

So you guys are gonna get pissy at that, but it's perfectly normal for a Republican congress to petty veto any of his bills? You guys really are trying to lay the victim card down thick.

>Because you were replying to someone who isn't me, so its not my place to respond to a statement I didn't make? Oh how dare I not take up for a point I didn't make.

Because that was the point I replied to originally, and then you replied to that reply. If I react to a conversation on chickens, and then someone randomly comes in and talks about ducks, I'm not gonna forget the goddamn chickens guy!

>Did you think maybe your subjective analysis isn't a valid point? And that you need factual evidence of cause in effect in addition to claims in a debate?

Subjective analysis? Is that what you call "the housing bubble in the early to late 2000s"? The fact that our minimum wage has grown disproportionate to the cost of living? The fact that businesses moving shit overseas has caused an obtuse debt for us to deal with? The fact that there was a generational bubble of unemployment centered around the fact that businesses would only hire experience with absolutely no comment on how "initial experience" was obtained?

But, right...initial just being super pessimistic.
#180 - kmichel (08/20/2016) [-]
Not to mention his unprecedented war on whistleblowers, the creation of the least transparent administration of recent times, his support for indefinite detention without a trial, his continued involvement in the ME, and his attempts at eliminating the right to due process by preventing people on terrorist watch lists from owning guns.
#36 - Best Joker <---------  [+] (9 replies) 08/20/2016 on with what +25
#74 - speedymcgee (08/20/2016) [-]
I think Heath Ledger did a well enough job to compete with Hamill a bit, but I like em both. Nice text color fam.
User avatar
#58 - skrelt (08/20/2016) [-]
holyshit he is good. but i am happy he isnt in supercrap squad
#65 - MuahahaOfLore (08/20/2016) [-]
he also goes by 'the trickster' in the Flash series's
<-----
User avatar
#53 - namelesslurker (08/20/2016) [-]
It is just perfect.
User avatar
#39 - priestoftheoldones (08/20/2016) [-]
If anyone says he isn't the perfect Joker they're opinions are to be disregarded
User avatar
#96 - dyslexicgramarnasi (08/20/2016) [-]
thei'rre*
User avatar
#99 - priestoftheoldones (08/20/2016) [-]
You're a great themed account
#48 - psychadelicace (08/20/2016) [-]
User avatar
#46 - barsaka (08/20/2016) [-]
He is a bit old and out of shape, but other than that hes good.