Over 59547

Ahem Politics

first president in history to -

TAGS: ahem
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by foxrecon19d

Pikeman - November 4, 2015, 2:07 pm
The dems have been disrespecting and undermining republicans as long as I remember. Little things like senator Ted's committing espionage against the USofA on behalf of the Russians to bring Reagan down.

first president in history to: -

TAGS: ahem
Rating: 2/5

More politifakes by crankyhead

crankyhead - June 3, 2014, 12:34 am
Ok then OTC, what're you implying? You tell me.
OTC - June 2, 2014, 10:11 pm
Good thing cranky isn't in an archery competition cause it sounds like he can't hit the mark
crankyhead - June 2, 2014, 7:05 pm
Because that does sound like what you're implying.
crankyhead - June 2, 2014, 7:04 pm
So, OTC, are you saying that the root cause of GOP obstructionism is racism?
EmmaRoydes - June 2, 2014, 4:07 pm
My bad
OTC - June 2, 2014, 2:55 pm
Wasn't that the word for last week?
EmmaRoydes - June 2, 2014, 1:55 pm
Oh, I thought today's word was aphasia. Oh, that was yesterday. Never mind.
OTC - June 2, 2014, 1:34 pm
Today's word is- 'implications'
OTC - June 2, 2014, 1:29 pm
Yes that is what the poster is about , why else would it clearly show only skin color? The former presidents are not the obstructionists, so why not simply use a picture of Obama?
EmmaRoydes - May 29, 2014, 6:59 pm
or maybe dems can't get anything done and shouldn't be given the "positions of power"
EmmaRoydes - May 29, 2014, 6:58 pm
I find it funny that when republicans are in control, they manage to get their agenda done, when dems are fully in control, they get stymied by republicans. So, are dems spineless little twerps or what?
crankyhead - May 29, 2014, 4:11 pm
Except that topic isn't racism. The topic is obstructionism. Why is it that all you guys want to talk about is skin colour, when that's clearly not what the poster is about?
OTC - May 29, 2014, 12:01 am
*Walk around n_a_k_e_d...unless they're really really h_o_t
OTC - May 28, 2014, 11:58 pm
People who live in glass houses... shouldn't walk around n****... unless they're really really h**
foxrecon19d - May 28, 2014, 10:34 pm
"Everything the Repunlicans propose will be dead on arrival in the Senate" Democrat Harry Reid. You were saying, meathead?
meatheads - May 28, 2014, 8:24 pm
THE DEMOCRATS ARE ruining America one day at a time? How? They can’t get one thing passed because Republicans have made it their mission to vote against everything the POTUS and Democrats propose. Try again.
EmmaRoydes - May 27, 2014, 6:01 pm
The topic is racism, my point is people who live in glass houses ...
Mooooooooooooooooooo - May 27, 2014, 10:55 am

The métis (like me) are the descendants of aboriginal and Europeans. So technically we didn't have any land. As for the rest I agree with you completely, but that wasn't the topic. And what's done is done.
EmmaRoydes - May 27, 2014, 8:31 am
I don't see a huge difference between our countries (other than the large number of french speakers in yours and spanish speakers in mine :))
EmmaRoydes - May 27, 2014, 8:28 am
So tell me, mooooo, when did the metis, indians, and inuits first decide that white people should own their land and exercise control over them?
Mooooooooooooooooooo - May 27, 2014, 8:08 am

2 Questions...1, Why do you think I was talking to you? 2, Why do you think I was defending Cranky?.
EmmaRoydes - May 27, 2014, 7:27 am
Harry reid's statement during bush is just as valid now as then: "the president has never seen a crisis that didn't create"
EmmaRoydes - May 27, 2014, 7:24 am
How about blatant hypocrisy by liberals? Clinton insisted that social security was approaching insolvency, yet when bush attemted to reform it, the liberals reversed course and claimed social security was sound
EmmaRoydes - May 27, 2014, 7:19 am
*rockefeller memo*
EmmaRoydes - May 27, 2014, 7:18 am
Social security reform bill, also check out the rockefeller , democrats complained about job losses then obstructed passage of job bills during bush, same with junk law suit bills, the list is large, but bush was white, so it's not racism, right?
EmmaRoydes - May 27, 2014, 7:12 am
Or we could avoid cranky's blatant racism charges and go by facts: chuck schumer cast 26 votes to filibuster bush nominees and said in 1993, "yes, we are blocking judges by filibuster", blockingofbush'senergybillbordersecuritybillclassactionreormbilrental
EmmaRoydes - May 27, 2014, 6:46 am
Mooooo, cranky was the one leveling racism charges, my intention was not to denigrate your country, but for cranky to see that he has no high ground
guest1833 - May 27, 2014, 12:48 am
Ms. Vicky, forgot to take your meds again? Of course, it could also be indicative of a schizophrenic nervous breakdown, but I didn't want to go there.
guest1833 - May 27, 2014, 12:44 am
Can't refute the data, so attack the source?
guest1833 - May 27, 2014, 12:43 am
Point out where I said that. In fact, I said just the opposite. It would be nice if you understood how logic works. Did you read the comments before posting, "Mooooooooo"? Would be nice if you applied the rules fairly here instead of defending Cranky
Mooooooooooooooooooo - May 27, 2014, 12:10 am

If we're talking about the percentage of "non white" political figures in general....well, between the aboriginal members and Canadian born Chinese members of Canada's parliament alone.....why are we having this argument?
Mooooooooooooooooooo - May 27, 2014, 12:05 am

The "breakdown of the population of Canada by race" you requested only leans the numbers in our favour....are you sure you want that?
Mooooooooooooooooooo - May 27, 2014, 12:01 am

Goodbye King Krankypants.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - May 26, 2014, 11:59 pm

We've had a female Prime minister (Kim Campbell)....where does that fit in to your questionnaire "Emma"? rag on Cranky all you want....leave my country out of it. We've had 22 Prime Ministers to your 56 Presidents....give it a minute.
EmmaRoydes - May 26, 2014, 10:58 pm
That should prove that you stand on higher moral ground
EmmaRoydes - May 26, 2014, 10:57 pm
Then by gender.
EmmaRoydes - May 26, 2014, 10:56 pm
Then you show the breakdown of the population of canada by race.
EmmaRoydes - May 26, 2014, 10:50 pm
Hey, cranky, can you make the same poster showing prime ministers of canada. I want to see how many non whites show up
Mooooooooooooooooooo - May 26, 2014, 10:24 pm

possibly thousands.
foxrecon19d - May 26, 2014, 9:50 pm
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Hey, this poster is being flaunted! Please do not replace this poster as it is the ULTIMATE example of brainwashed liberal ignorance. Keep this up as a warning to those who refuse to drink the Kool-aid can still think for themselves!
foxrecon19d - May 26, 2014, 9:49 pm
***snicker*** KingKranKy, complains about getting tired of seeing posters... contributed a grand total of...wait... Tell us how many posters you've contributed, again?
foxrecon19d - May 26, 2014, 6:39 pm
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Hey, this poster is being flaunted! Please do not replace this poster as it is the ULTIMATE example of brainwashed liberal ignorance. Keep this up as a warning to those who refuse to drink the Kool-aid can still think for themselves!
OTC - May 26, 2014, 9:19 am
So disagreeing with him is only half racist
foxrecon19d - May 25, 2014, 8:28 pm
wow, crankyhead. If this poster of yours, which you made to illustrate your complete and utter devotion to the Democrat party narrative, were any more underwhelming, politifake would have to invent negative L's...
foxrecon19d - May 25, 2014, 8:02 pm
awwww....crankyhead is whining because the Republicans are treating Barack Obama the same way Republican Abraham Lincoln treated Democrat Jefferson Davis and like Republican Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. treated the Democrat KKK.Everyone give cranks a tissue
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 2:43 pm
OK, good chatting with ya OTC. Take care.
OTC - May 25, 2014, 2:42 pm
Human nature? Anyways, its family time, gotta go
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 2:38 pm
If everyone is paying the same %, why would anyone cry?
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 2:38 pm
It was submitted in 1789, so I'm not sure. Wasn't ratified until 1992 though, which is kinda crazy.
OTC - May 25, 2014, 2:36 pm
I agree, but you know certain people will still be crying.that the rich aren't paying their fair share at 15%
OTC - May 25, 2014, 2:32 pm
And who added that? Not the will of the people. politician was not meant to be a career, it was meant as a service to the people
OTC - May 25, 2014, 2:29 pm
I know, that's why I said a "need" for them to be there, and you're wrong. the Mexican army invading isn't the problem, it's the Mexican drug lords. perhaps you should read up on news about El Paso, Arizona and other border towns
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 2:27 pm
Which in turn, would provide the middle and lower classes with way more disposable income, and spur economic growth.
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 2:26 pm
True. But if there weren't any loopholes, you could feasibly get away with a 10% - 15% flat rate across the board, and show a surplus.
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 2:25 pm
... Something about there being a rifle behind every blade of grass?
OTC - May 25, 2014, 2:25 pm
(Can't trust politicians to be fair)
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 2:24 pm
A large part of the US military isn't on the borders though OTC. I'm also highly doubtful that either Mexico or Canada would even dream of invading your country. What's that old quote from Yamamoto about how terrible an idea it would be?...
OTC - May 25, 2014, 2:23 pm
Depends, 50% would hurt most but not some
OTC - May 25, 2014, 2:19 pm
or at least until we get a leader in the White House
OTC - May 25, 2014, 2:19 pm
Since obama failed to show leadership in promising to close Gitmo and get us out of Afghanistan and starting another cold war and a need to have our military on our borders, I'd say military cuts should be the last thing right now...
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 2:18 pm
Yes, I agree with the premise that everyone should pay their fair share. Corporations included.
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 2:17 pm
Would be simpler to just get the same % from everyone, regardless of income, no?
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 2:17 pm
Corporate welfare is a bi-partisan issue.
OTC - May 25, 2014, 2:14 pm
Ever hear the saying 'Its easier to get a dollar from a million people. than to get a million dollars from one person'? Its better to collect small amount of taxes from a lot of people than a lot of taxes from a few people, agree?
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 2:11 pm
Yes, Congress is mandated to provide for the military. I didn't say 'abolish the military', I asked how you'd feel about making cuts to the military, considering how large the current budget is.
OTC - May 25, 2014, 2:10 pm
Sure, but overall its the dems more so than the GOP, you know, the ones in favor of corporate welfare because corporations provide jobs which boost the economy and bring in more revenue because more people working is more taxes being collected
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 2:09 pm
Wouldn't the lifeline program fall under 'promoting the general welfare'? People can't get a job, if a potential employer can't call them. But that just brings us back to the minimum wage argument. If they could afford a phone... problem solved.
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 2:07 pm
Hate to break it to you, but the 27th amendment provides for the compensation of Senators and Representatives.
OTC - May 25, 2014, 2:06 pm
raising taxes to lower the deficit is temporary and doesn't resolve the problem, kicking the can down the road is not leadership
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 2:05 pm
It's nice that you agree that an increase in disposable income would help bolster the economy though. That's some progress.
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 2:04 pm
There are plenty of Republicans on minimum wage in Republican states, and plenty of Republicans also screwing over the economy. Don't pretend like there aren't.
OTC - May 25, 2014, 2:00 pm
Our Constitution makes Congress provide for our military, not free phones, lavish IRS conferences, or even pay increases and retirement for politicians
OTC - May 25, 2014, 1:57 pm
If democrats would stop screwing the economy people would have more than a minimum wage job and could afford more than a phone, a lot more
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 1:52 pm
Some folks go into business to go broke. It's called vulture capitalism. That Mitt Romney and all his cronies over at Bain Capital are experts at it.
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 1:48 pm
Getting back to the minimum wage issue though... If a 40 hour week at minimum wage, was in fact a liveable wage, then you could significantly slash the phone subsidies, because people could afford to pay it themselves. Follow?
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 1:46 pm
Probably because military spending constitutes around 20% of the federal budget. Also, the US spends more on it's military than China, Russia, France, Britain, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Germany Brazil and Italy, combined.
OTC - May 25, 2014, 1:42 pm
And when talking about spending cuts, the military seems to be first on the list, why is that?
OTC - May 25, 2014, 1:41 pm
Well at least you're starting to understand overspending hurts, you can't continue to operate with a deficit or you will be out of business. people don't go in business to go broke, only governments seem to do that.
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 1:38 pm
Minimum wage increases actually amplify consumerism, which in turn, boosts the economy. The more disposable income people have, the more they buy, the better it is for everyone.
OTC - May 25, 2014, 1:36 pm
At some point in this I did suggest Clinton showed leadership,didn't I?maybe obama didn't get his minimum wage increase because of the ridiculous amount demanded
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 1:33 pm
How would you feel about cuts to the military budget? Would that be a sign of leadership?
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 1:32 pm
Ultimately though, unless you're growing your own lemons, your price point is determined by whoever sells you the lemons. Simple economics.
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 1:31 pm
Well, ultimately, you'd look to bring your overhead down to at least 3.33$ a month, otherwise you'll never have enough money to pay your labor costs, your taxes, your energy costs, your rent and still have some left over to take home to the wife.
OTC - May 25, 2014, 1:29 pm
Cut out buying bubblegum,trading cards,and cat toys and just buy what you need reducing your spending to $10 a month?
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 1:27 pm
The Lifeline program started during the Reagan administration. Are you suggesting that every POTUS since Reagan has suffered a leadership failure?
OTC - May 25, 2014, 1:27 pm
Lets make this real simple, if you make $10 a month on your lemonade stand and have $20 a month in spending, what do you do? Raise the price of lemonade,which brings in more money reducing your deficit but also hurts your business (the economy) or
OTC - May 25, 2014, 1:20 pm
Wow, really? Read more slowly, I'm against deficit reduction by increasing taxes, I am FOR deficit reduction by cutting spending.
OTC - May 25, 2014, 1:15 pm
For example, he could say "We can't afford to give away free cell phones, so lets cut that." That reduuces spending and thus the amount of money owed, i.e. the deficit would reduce, that would be leadership
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 1:14 pm
So, now you're against deficit reduction? I don't understand you sometimes OC. In any case, federal spending remaining the same, is a whole lot better than spending going up, no?
OTC - May 25, 2014, 1:06 pm
Lowering the deficiit by increasing taxes while spending remains the same is not leadership, its a talking point illusion
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 1:01 pm
Well, OTC, the only way to eliminate the deficit, is by shrinking it all the way to $0. That's what's happening at the moment. Do you agree or disagree that this is a sign of leadership?
OTC - May 25, 2014, 12:56 pm
Trick question, but the deficit is the difference between government spending and actual money to pay for it. Since dems raised taxes, more money is coming in so the deficit shrinks. true leadership would be to lower spending and not have a deficit
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 12:51 pm
Well, you brought it up, nice to see you want to move on to the actual content of the poster. Do you agree or disagree that the current administration is showing leadership, considering current unemployment numbers shrinking, and deficit reduction?
OTC - May 25, 2014, 12:48 pm
I am, but you keep focusing back to skin color, why is that?
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 12:45 pm
So, with unemployment on the decline, and the defecit shrinking for the first time in almost a century, do you agree or disagree, that the current administration is showing leadership?
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 12:44 pm
Correction: The first 43 have white hair, or would if they were still alive. Why are we still not talking about what the poster is about (GOP obstructionism)?
OTC - May 25, 2014, 12:44 pm
Clinton overcame GOP obstructionism, its called leadership.
OTC - May 25, 2014, 12:42 pm
"The first 43...if they were still alive"
crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 12:42 pm
You're the only guy insinuating something, by focusing on skin color, instead of the real topic, which is GOP obstructionism. Why is that?
OTC - May 25, 2014, 12:41 pm
Second, thoses aren't ph**os, they're called outlines and if skin color was added then hair and clothing should have been added as well, unless trying to 'insinuate' something