Support NeoGAF

[StevieP]

Wouldn't have happened if Dems would have just cut the 16 million... yeah that's right.. ONLY 16 fricken million in proposed cuts the republicans recommended.. but nope... so now we have this.

Those are jobs you are talking about, not just dollar figures. For someone who cites unemployment you're not making a good case here.

 

[speculawyer]

Also, Biden's comment was not offensive. He had his skull opened twice to repair aneurysms in the 80s. He almost died the first time-- he got last rites from a priest.

Yeah but you can omit that critically important detail and get 48 hours of Fox News fake outrage.

 

[empty vessel]

6. As you may know, the agreement would cut about one trillion dollars in government spending over the next ten years with provisions to make additional spending cuts in the future. Regardless of how you feel about the overall agreement, do you approve or disapprove of the cuts in government spending included in the debt ceiling agreement?

Aug. 1
2011
Approve 65%
Disapprove 30%
No opinion 4%
​

Not surprised by this answer either. Americans want spending cuts.

No, they don't want spending cuts, and you should stop spreading the misinformation that they do. They think they do and will respond positively in a vacuum to a question about spending cuts, but people are just apes. They have been primed by American media to respond in this manner to this language. So you have to inquire a little bit further to see what they really believe than asking an abstract question without context would reveal. Show them the budget and ask them whether they would prefer to cut spending on specific projects or raise taxes on the rich, and they will overwhelmingly object to the former and choose the latter. The data is crystal clear on this.

We know what Americans want, and it's not to cut spending.[/QUOTE]

 

[Snake]

Another Bidenism:

Biden welcomes Gabby Giffords to the "cracked head club"

Really? And you folks were worried about Palin being VP?

I wish I could keep this uninformed false equivalence in a jar on my desk at work, so I could always turn to it and get a quick smile.

 

[DasRaven]

Wouldn't have happened if Dems would have just cut the 16 million... yeah that's right.. ONLY 16 fricken million in proposed cuts the republicans recommended.. but nope... so now we have this.

Not quite.

The House GOP's position (with Mica at the helm) has been to hold the provision allowing majority rule voting for unionization up to impede passage of a long-term funding bill.
When it became fairly indefensible to do that in light of the looming shutdown, their position switched to elimination of subsidies to rural airports in mostly Democratic districts.

So the convo was this:
GOP: "We'll fund the FAA, if we can make it harder for them to unionize."
DEM: "Hell no, drop your interference into their rights of free association."
NEWS: "FAA shutdown looms, 74000 out of work & safe air travel at risk due to GOP anti-labor provision."
GOP: "(Oh shit, we're screwed.) Tell you what, just cripple/close a bunch of airports in your districts and we'll call it even."
DEM: "That hardly seems a reasonable alternative."
GOP to NEWS: "Dems are choosing 'pork' over FAA jobs."

 

[GhaleonEB]

"I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn't think that. What we did learn is this -- it's a hostage that's worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done."​

-- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), quoted by the Washington Post, on the debt ceiling negotiations.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/08/03/extra_bonus_quote_of_the_day.html

I recall some in the GOP taking offense at the hostage taking metaphor. Especially in the context of economic terrorism. Tell you what, if you don't want to be called an economic terrorist, don't take the fucking economy hostage.

The FAA fiasco is yet another example.

 

[SlipperySlope]

No, they don't want spending cuts, and you should stop spreading the misinformation that they do. They think they do and will respond positively in a vacuum to a question about spending cuts, but people are just apes. They have been primed by American media to respond in this manner to this language. So you have to inquire a little bit further to see what they really believe than asking an abstract question without context would reveal. Show them the budget and ask them whether they would prefer to cut spending on specific projects or raise taxes on the rich, and they will overwhelmingly object to the former and choose the latter. The data is crystal clear on this.

We know what Americans want, and it's not to cut spending.

lol. A little defensive? Everybody thinks they know what Americans want, and that it follows their values. You and I included.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I recall some in the GOP taking offense at the hostage taking metaphor. Especially in the context of economic terrorism. Tell you what, if you don't want to be called an economic terrorist, don't take the fucking economy hostage.

The FAA fiasco is yet another example.

The amount we're losing in revenue per week is bigger than the cost of the subsidy at issue per year. It's insane.

On the topic of that identification survey: It doesn't really matter what people call themselves. Whether you're asking about people's conception of the ideal distribution of income or what specific health care policies they'd prefer, they overwhelmingly prefer liberal policy solutions. Such people who identify as "conservatives" due so largely because of ignorance.

 

[StevieP]

lol. A little defensive? Everybody thinks they know what Americans want, and that it follows their values. You and I included.

I had an example earlier in this thread. Ask your family-loving republican friend the following:

If you honestly ask someone "so, should we reduce your grandmother's medicare cheques?" - do you think they would say "hell yes, the bitch doesn't deserve them. I prefer that the CEO of Goldman Sachs earn a slightly bigger salary so that they can "create jobs"

Spoiler

overseas

? Honestly, do you think normal people - the majority of Americans - would say something like that?

 

[SlipperySlope]

The amount we're losing in revemue per week is bigger than the cost of the subsidy at issue per year. It's insane.

On the topic of that identification survey: It doesn't really matter what people call themselves. Whether you're asking about people's conception of the ideal distribution of income or what specific health care policies they'd prefer, they overwhelmingly prefer liberal policy solutions. Such people who identify as "conservatives" due so largely because of ignorance.

Regarding the FAA, this is another example of since the GOP took the House, the Democrats became the party of "no". Alright, I'll give them a little credit. It's more like "no. No. NO. NO! ....... ok".

 

[Byakuya769]

GOP - Hey, we want to cut jobs!

Dems - NO!

Slipperyslope - LOL, now look at who's the party of no!!!

 

[reilo]

I think a highly underreported story that affects our economy and cost of living more than anything with rising gas costs beyond "oh my god, it costs how much to fill up my SUV??" is that rising fuel costs are also affecting the trucking business. The costlier it gets to deliver goods -- and everything is delivered by some guy in a truck to you -- due to rising fuel costs, the more it will cost to purchase the items you need.

I was just reading a random story earlier about the trucking business and was reminded once again how much these businesses need to pay in fuel costs to deliver the goods we take for granted.

The numbers are spot-on from what I've been hearing from my dad for years, who runs his own authority. Back in 2008 when fuel was about $4-5/gal, it cost my dad $10,000/month in fuel alone.

Just a friendly reminder that the next time you see that big oil has made another record breaking profit due to record-level gasoline/diesel prices, think about it beyond what it will take to fill up your gas tank this week. Make note that whatever you buy at the local grocery store or that you will order online just went up in price, too.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Al-Jazeera documentary - With 1% of Americans controlling 40% of the country's wealth, we examine the gap between the rich and the rest.

 

[KtSlime]

...but I still think not voting is the most ridiculous thing anyone can do.

This x 1000.

Abstaining to vote is one of the few ways a populace in a democratic government can show their disagreement and displeasure with the system. Many people abstain to vote, or vote for a particular candidate that has no chance in winning for other reasons that being lazy, or wanting to reward the Republicans. I see nothing wrong with the decisions that these people make, it really isn't much different than voting for the lesser of two evils which you are proposing.

The system is broken, these people see that the system is broken and decide it is not worth it to participate - even if they DID participate, the system would remain broken, because the part that the populace is allowed to participate in has no control over the shape of the system. Understand? Abstaining is how you say the system is broken and that you will not play part in the broken system.

However, instead of the government, the elected officials seeing low turnouts for votes as a sign that people are displeased with the system, they as corrupt individuals in a corrupt machine see it to their advantage - they shock the gullible into voting people in that have no desire to fix anything, and just to make it worse, or they stupidly raise a billion dollars to sell themselves to the people that haven't quite lost all hope in the system - but that will just jade these hope-filled people even more. If we see even fewer people come in and vote this coming election, do you know who's fault it is? It will be the Democrats/Obama, for making false promises.

Tell me how voting for Obama this coming election will start to fix the system and I will vote for him, I'll be the fucking first person in line in my district. But if you are expecting me to vote for the lesser of two evils to maintain the status quo, you'd be mistaken - I'd rather vote for someone that has no chance of winning but more closely expresses my political opinions, than continue to play this broken game.

 

[MisterNugNug]

GOP agenda for 2011: damage economy as much as possible (see: FAA bill idling ~70,000 construction workers and furloughing thousands more; slash other spending as much as possible; oppose all jobs bills).

GOP agenda for 2012: Point out how shitty the economy is, blame Obama.

Will it work?

Yes.

 

[unomas]

Al-Jazeera - With 1% of Americans controlling 40% of the country's wealth, we examine the gap between the rich and the rest.

Al Jazeera isn't a real news network, I only watch NBC, CBS, Fox, and ABC for my news!

I also love how people like to make this a left versus right issue and blame this all on the GOP, it's not about my team your team, they're all on the same side. The downfall of this country is the two party system and the corruption at all levels.

 

[demon]

I think a highly underreported story that affects our economy and cost of living more than anything with rising gas costs beyond "oh my god, it costs how much to fill up my SUV??" is that rising fuel costs are also affecting the trucking business. The costlier it gets to deliver goods -- and everything is delivered by some guy in a truck to you -- due to rising fuel costs, the more it will cost to purchase the items you need.

I was just reading a random story earlier about the trucking business and was reminded once again how much these businesses need to pay in fuel costs to deliver the goods we take for granted.

The numbers are spot-on from what I've been hearing from my dad for years, who runs his own authority. Back in 2008 when fuel was about $4-5/gal, it cost my dad $10,000/month in fuel alone.

Just a friendly reminder that the next time you see that big oil has made another record breaking profit due to record-level gasoline/diesel prices, think about it beyond what it will take to fill up your gas tank this week. Make note that whatever you buy at the local grocery store or that you will order online just went up in price, too.

Of course. Rising oil costs don't just affect how much it takes to drive to work or to make that trip to Six Flags. It affects everything. It won't be pretty over the coming decades.

 

[reilo]

Of course. Rising fuel costs don't just affect how much it takes to drive to work or to make that trip to Six Flags. It affects everything. It won't be pretty over the coming decades.

It's why finding a suitable fuel alternative with long-range capabilities is so important. It's not just about saving the planet or whatever we tend to focus on in regards to this discussion, but it has long-term economic incentive that will only do us good.

Which is why it's so maddening to see so much opposition to green fuel/alternative-fuel initiatives.

The reason I bring this up is because most people don't even realize this beyond the immediate impact as it relates to them -- ie, filling up the car, rising plane fares while traveling to Hawaii.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Abstaining to vote is one of the few ways a populace in a democratic government can show their disagreement and displeasure with the system. Many people abstain to vote, or vote for a particular candidate that has no chance in winning for other reasons that being lazy, or wanting to reward the Republicans. I see nothing wrong with the decisions that these people make, it really isn't much different than voting for the lesser of two evils which you are proposing.

The system is broken, these people see that the system is broken and decide it is not worth it to participate - even if they DID participate, the system would remain broken, because the part that the populace is allowed to participate in has no control over the shape of the system. Understand? Abstaining is how you say the system is broken and that you will not play part in the broken system.

However, instead of the government, the elected officials seeing low turnouts for votes as a sign that people are displeased with the system, they as corrupt individuals in a corrupt machine see it too their advantage - they shock the gullible into voting people in that have no desire to fix anything, and just to make it worse, or they stupidly raise a billion dollars to sell themselves to the people that haven't quite lost all hope in the system - but that will just jade these hope-filled people even more. If we see even fewer people come in and vote this coming election, do you know who's fault it is? It will be the Democrats/Obama, for making false promises.

Tell me how voting for Obama this coming election will start to fix the system and I will vote for him, I'll be the fucking first person in line in my district. But if you are expecting me to vote for the lesser of two evils to maintain the status quo, you'd be mistaken - I'd rather vote for someone that has no chance of winning but more closely expresses my political opinions, than continue to play this broken game.

I wish a lot of what you're saying could be true, but it's not. It doesn't come close to being true. And for as disappointed and disgusted as I've been with the Obama administration at times, you have to understand that in our two-party majoritarian system, the only way for you to be electorally effective (assuming you live in a state that matters) is to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of the two evils.

We live in a country where turnout in presidential elections is routinely around 50%. Your abstention means nothing. Absent systemic electoral reforms, this is the system we have. Look at it this way: you may not have to vote in the election, but you will have to live with the consequences.

 

[speculawyer]

Al-Jazeera - With 1% of Americans controlling 40% of the country's wealth, we examine the gap between the rich and the rest.

I'm sure we can look forward to a hard-hitting article on the wealth disparity between Qatar's oil barons and the various workers that they import.

 

[Vanillalite]

No, they don't want spending cuts, and you should stop spreading the misinformation that they do. They think they do and will respond positively in a vacuum to a question about spending cuts, but people are just apes. They have been primed by American media to respond in this manner to this language. So you have to inquire a little bit further to see what they really believe than asking an abstract question without context would reveal. Show them the budget and ask them whether they would prefer to cut spending on specific projects or raise taxes on the rich, and they will overwhelmingly object to the former and choose the latter. The data is crystal clear on this.

We know what Americans want, and it's not to cut spending.

[/QUOTE]
I actually had this exact thing play out in a talk with my mom. Outside of wanting to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan she was like well taxes verses other cuts when you got to the details, and she's always leaned conservative.

PS: It helps that she sees a different prospective now as my current gf who my mom really likes is on the other side of the fence in terms of her economic status and what her life has been like.

 

[unomas]

If you agree with it or not it's worth a watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl2JQfxnnHU

 

[Dude Abides]

So what do folks think will Obama's 2012 slogan be? "Finish the job"?

Spoiler

Preemptive trolling: "It could have been worse!", "A million jobs saved!" "That guy's even worse!"

 

[Meus Renaissance]

I'm sure we can look forward to a hard-hitting article on the wealth disparity between Qatar's oil barons and the various workers that they import.

Touche. This is a documentary though (doesn't change your point) so thought some might be interested in watching

 

[ronito]

Al Jazeera isn't a real news network, I only watch NBC, CBS, Fox, and ABC for my news!

I also love how people like to make this a left versus right issue and blame this all on the GOP, it's not about my team your team, they're all on the same side. The downfall of this country is the two party system and the corruption at all levels.

I tire so much of this "It's EVERYONE'S fault!" thing. It's just a way to say "It's not us!"

Yes, the overall problem is that they've given too much power to corporations and created "super-citizens" with much more say and money than any average citizen and without any morals.

But still, you have one party that worships the upper class and believes that the best way to move the country forward is to make it easier on that upper class even if it means making it harder on everyone else.

Yes, dems are to blame too. However, the level of fault is not the same. Nor should we act as it is.

 

[FLEABttn]

Regarding the FAA, this is another example of since the GOP took the House, the Democrats became the party of "no". Alright, I'll give them a little credit. It's more like "no. No. NO. NO! ....... ok".

You're either being disingenuous for the purposes of looking cute or you genuinely think there is virtually no difference between what the Dems are doing or what the GOP is doing.

 

[reilo]

Another false equivalency debate?

 

[speculawyer]

Of course. Rising oil costs don't just affect how much it takes to drive to work or to make that trip to Six Flags. It affects everything. It won't be pretty over the coming decades.

Everything indeed. All plastics . . . made from oil. Pharmaceuticals . . . largely made from oil. Pesticides . . . made from oil.

It is pretty much the biggest and proportionally unreported and not discussed story.

Why is that? Many feel that government officials won't talk about it because it is a huge problem that they have absolutely no fix for. Thus, it doesn't get discussed. I also think that it doesn't help that many of the people that talk about it are often paranoid alarmists that make it into a story about a pending apocalypse (Kunstler, Michael Ruppert, etc.) or faith-based deniers thank think oil problems could be solved by just drilling ANWR and off California.

It is a massive structural problem that is a gigantic slow-motion train wreck. Every increase in oil price sucks more money out of the rest of the economy and out of the country because we import nearly 2/3s of our oil.


And it is basically going to continue to strangle with little relief until the price gets high enough that some alternatives can finally step in and act as replacements for some of the oil usage.



And this is why I continue to say that we should drill ANWR since that could at least eliminate a stupid excuse for not addressing the issue.

It's why finding a suitable fuel alternative with long-range capabilities is so important. It's not just about saving the planet or whatever we tend to focus on in regards to this discussion, but it has long-term economic incentive that will only do us good.

Yep. My concerns about this issue are far more economic and national security than environmental. That is why I hate the tree-hugger angle in advertising campaigns for EVs like the Nissan Leaf. Granted, much of the early adopter market will be tree-huggers but such campaigns also create a backlash from the idiots who proudly pollute as much as possible. Those people who think of themselves as uber-patriots need to realize that their desire for Hummers is basically giving money the Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin, Akmed Imadinnerjacket, and people that quietly give money to terrorists.

 

[unomas]

I tire so much of this "It's EVERYONE'S fault!" thing. It's just a way to say "It's not us!"

Yes, the overall problem is that they've given too much power to corporations and created "super-citizens" with much more say and money than any average citizen and without any morals.

But still, you have one party that worships the upper class and believes that the best way to move the country forward is to make it easier on that upper class even if it means making it harder on everyone else.

Yes, dems are to blame too. However, the level of fault is not the same. Nor should we act as it is.

So if two people kill one person, but one person of the two is more responsible for the death are they not both guilty and go to jail? Both sides suck, democrats and republicans are full of shit, both of them are bought and paid for. I can give you examples of a million lies on both sides. I thought Obama was going to get us out of Iraq? Bullshit, I thought Iraq had WMD's Bush? Bullshit! It's all bullshit, and they play this fake drama game as the people continue to cheer for their side when in reality there are no sides except the rich against all of us, and they're in the process of delivering the final death blow while everyone is asleep at the wheel watching the ongoing bullshit theatrics of red versus blue. It blows my mind.

 

[FLEABttn]

Another false equivalency debate?

While I don't post in PoliGAF a lot (hardly at all really), I do read just about every page of it and I've seen enough false equivalency debates to satisfy my desire for the rest of my lifetime, so I personally rather wouldn't.

 

[reilo]

So if two people kill one person, but one person of the two is more responsible for the death are they not both guilty and go to jail? Both sides suck, democrats and republicans are full of shit, both of them are bought and paid for. I can give you examples of a million lies on both sides. I thought Obama was going to get us out of Iraq? Bullshit, I thought Iraq had WMD's Bush? Bullshit! It's all bullshit, and they play this fake drama game as the people continue to cheer for their side when in reality there are no sides except the rich against all of us, and they're in the process of delivering the final death blow while everyone is asleep at the wheel watching the ongoing bullshit theatrics of red versus blue. It blows my mind.

Like clock-work.

 

[ronito]

So if two people kill one person, but one person of the two is more responsible for the death are they not both guilty and go to jail? Both sides suck, democrats and republicans are full of shit, both of them are bought and paid for. I can give you examples of a million lies on both sides. I thought Obama was going to get us out of Iraq? Bullshit, I thought Iraq had WMD's Bush? Bullshit! It's all bullshit, and they play this fake drama game as the people continue to cheer for their side when in reality there are no sides except the rich against all of us, and they're in the process of delivering the final death blow while everyone is asleep at the wheel watching the ongoing bullshit theatrics of red versus blue. It blows my mind.

who said they were team cheering?

Lemme ask, one person drives the car to the murder place the other does the killing.

Would you have me believe they're both killers?

 

[reilo]

who said they were team cheering?

Lemme ask, one person drives the car to the murder place the other does the killing.

Would you have me believe they're both killers?

Legally, I believe accessory to murder has the same punishment as actual murder. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

But holy hell. Why are you engaging in that analogy to begin with?

 

[eznark]

Remember last week when the GOP was dying and the tea party was splitting the party.

The last few pages are funny.

 

[RustyNails]

I'm sure we can look forward to a hard-hitting article on the wealth disparity between Qatar's oil barons and the various workers that they import.

Here you go.

I understand, a wealth disparity piece from Terrorist News Network might sound laughable. But it's a well researched piece of journalism and deserves it's own space. I wish people just stopped having knee jerk reaction to the words "Al Jazeera". Trust me, America would do a whole lot better as a whole if ALJ played in every household instead of CNN/MSNBC/FNC.

 

[unomas]

who said they were team cheering?

Lemme ask, one person drives the car to the murder place the other does the killing.

Would you have me believe they're both killers?

An accomplice to murder, but the point is underwhelming because you're looking to place more blame on one side versus the other, when in the grand scheme of things, as gold prices continue to blow up, and our food and oil prices spike; it doesn't really matter who is more responsible. They're both responsible, deciding one is 52% while the other is 48% is an utter waste of time. Now excuse me while I go count my gold and silver bullion

 

[gcubed]

Remember last week when the GOP was dying and the tea party was splitting the party.

The last few pages are funny.

its best to just let the current mood move through. To keep my mind off of things I have a winning baseball team to watch that is coasting ahead of everyone... you have the brewers.

 

[ToxicAdam]

GOP agenda for 2011: damage economy as much as possible (see: FAA bill idling ~70,000 construction workers and furloughing thousands more; slash other spending as much as possible; oppose all jobs bills).

GOP agenda for 2012: Point out how shitty the economy is, blame Obama.

Will it work? Dunno. Obama will be tough to defeat. But he'll be running into very strong economic headwinds.

Liberal chattering class agenda for 2011: Continue to attempt to convince people that the GOP have a grand conspiracy to tank the economy while only controlling 1/3 of the government. Even though most people aren't buying it and believe that government doesn't create sustaining jobs.

LCC agenda for 2012: Label everyone a tea party supporter and incite fears of right wing radicalism. Stare in shock and awe as they hemorrage more losses in Congress and Obama loses. Blame Fox News.

 

[StevieP]

Liberal chattering class agenda for 2011: Continue to attempt to convince people that the GOP have a grand conspiracy to tank the economy while only controlling 1/3 of the government. Even though most people aren't buying it and believe that government doesn't create sustaining jobs.

LCC agenda for 2012: Label everyone a tea party supporter and incite fears of right wing radicalism. Stare in shock and awe as they hemorrage more losses in Congress and Obama loses. Blame Fox News.

That 1/3 control sure seems like a lot more at the moment, don't you say?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

and also who in their right mind believes the government doesn't create sustainable jobs...

 

[eznark]

its best to just let the current mood move through. To keep my mind off of things I have a winning baseball team to watch that is coasting ahead of everyone... you have the brewers.

Brewers doing juuuust fine for themselves. We can't all be bandwagoners.

 

[ViperVisor]

Blame Fox News.

Poll: Americans Don't Know Economy Expanded With Tax Cuts

The Obama administration cut taxes for middle-class Americans, expects to make a profit on the hundreds of billions of dollars spent to rescue Wall Street banks and has overseen an economy that has grown for the past five quarters.

Most voters don’t believe it.

Lies and bullshit worked and will continue to.

 

[SlipperySlope]

and also who in their right mind believes the government doesn't create sustainable jobs...

The issue for me isn't sustainability. It's productivity. Government workers are less productive than their private counterparts, which is why I think private employment is more important than public employment, as far as the economy is concerned.

 

[DasRaven]

Liberal chattering class agenda for 2011: Continue to attempt to convince people that the GOP have a grand conspiracy to tank the economy while only controlling 1/3 of the government. Even though most people aren't buying it and believe that government doesn't create sustaining jobs.

Just two notes.

If they control the 3rd of government that solely controls the initiation or cessation of all spending by the government, would they need any more control?

If they, so far, have not proposed any legislation that would assist an economic recovery by creating public or private investment incentives, is that indicative of an attempt to help the economy?

 

[mckmas8808]

and also who in their right mind believes the government doesn't create sustainable jobs...

The Tea Party and people that aren't too smart.

 

[DasRaven]

The issue for me isn't sustainability. It's productivity. Government workers are less productive than their private counterparts, which is why I think private employment is more important than public employment, as far as the economy is concerned.

[ CITATION NEEDED ]

 

[polyh3dron]

Liberal chattering class agenda for 2011: Continue to attempt to convince people that the GOP have a grand conspiracy to tank the economy while only controlling 1/3 of the government.

Maybe you missed it

Spoiler

no you didn't you're just being obtuse

but they managed to pass legislation potentially detrimental to the economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage. All of this by controlling 1/3 of the government. It's fucked.

Have you seen one piece of legislation come out of the Republican-controlled house that is geared towards job creation?

 

[SlipperySlope]

Brewers doing juuuust fine for themselves. We can't all be bandwagoners.

Speaking of Brewers, I just invested in Boston Beer Inc. today. The biggest American brewer.

 

[TacticalFox88]

The issue for me isn't sustainability. It's productivity. Government workers are less productive than their private counterparts, which is why I think private employment is more important than public employment, as far as the economy is concerned.

That has to be the biggest pile of horseshit I've read from you.

 

[NullPointer]

So what do folks think will Obama's 2012 slogan be? "Finish the job"?

So would that make Obama's first term equivalent to Halo 2?

Makes more sense than it should actually.