SuperFail!

[ekg]

Which questions?  Do you mean these?




I already answered those.  She was crazy the whole time.


But your questions, if not crazy, are rather vague.   First of all, I don't know if there will be any Republican attempts to circumvent the defense cuts.  I think over the next year, if there is an attempt to correct it, it would be in the 2013 budget, and I think that will be fairly bipartisan.  So as you said, it's not partisanship.

Although honestly, do you actually think there would be any cuts, even if Congress does nothing?  What, exactly is being cut?  Is 600 million being cut from specific programs, or from the defense appropriations in general?  And how could the 600 billion from Medicare be cut?  If Congress cuts 600 billion from the FY 13 budget for Medicare, remember that as an entitlement, Congress doesn't have to appropriate funds if Medicare runs over it's budget in a given year.  It will just automatically spend more.

funny, you missed quite a few that would force you to recognize publically what I've been trying to explain this whole time..

funny, but not unexpected..

so I'll just ask again..

what reason does he have for vetoing any legislation that would void Defense cuts?

[44nutman]

I find it funny anyone thought that, that clusterfuck of a committee would actually accomplish anything. I knew they would not get anything done. The committee worked just as planned. They are able to cut the government without either side having to shoulder the blame, well except Obama. Everything is his fault.

[lil mike]

funny, you missed quite a few that would force you to recognize publically what I've been trying to explain this whole time..

funny, but not unexpected..

so I'll just ask again..

what reason does he have for vetoing any legislation that would void Defense cuts?

That was in the article I posted.  Allow me to relink for you.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-approriations/194963-obama-to-gop-lawmakers-on-voiding-sequestration-cuts-qnoq

Obama threatened to veto any bill Congress sends him that seeks to void the automatic defense cuts or an equal amount of domestic spending cuts.

"There will be no easy off-ramps on this one," Obama said, adding "we need to keep the pressure up" to find a compromise on a broader debt-reduction plan.

The "only way" the deep automatic cuts will be avoided, the president said, if is "Congress gets back to work."

[lil mike]

I find it funny anyone thought that, that clusterfuck of a committee would actually accomplish anything. I knew they would not get anything done. The committee worked just as planned. They are able to cut the government without either side having to shoulder the blame, well except Obama. Everything is his fault.

I think the committee really telegraphed that by declaring it a failure days before the deadline.  And the talking head shows were remarkably meh about it.

[Howey]

what reason does he have for vetoing any legislation that would void Defense cuts?

That was in the article I posted.  Allow me to relink for you.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-approriations/194963-obama-to-gop-lawmakers-on-voiding-sequestration-cuts-qnoq

Obama threatened to veto any bill Congress sends him that seeks to void the automatic defense cuts or an equal amount of domestic spending cuts.

"There will be no easy off-ramps on this one," Obama said, adding "we need to keep the pressure up" to find a compromise on a broader debt-reduction plan.

The "only way" the deep automatic cuts will be avoided, the president said, if is "Congress gets back to work."

Nowhere in there is a "reason". There's an "explanation" of what Obama plans to do. Biiiiiig difference.

Which questions?  Do you mean these?
I already answered those.  She was crazy the whole time.

No. My questions. Since you are inable to read them within context, I'll break it down to two questions.

Why not just answer the question, lilmike?

Why is Obama doing this?

What reason does he have to veto the Republicans attempts to circumvent the defense cuts?

It's not partisanship. He said he would do the same thing if it was dems trying to circumvent entitlement cuts.

Which questions?  Do you mean these?




I already answered those.  She was crazy the whole time.


But your questions, if not crazy, are rather vague.

Ahh...so you came back to call us crazy. I'm glad you're back because if ekg and are are merely "crazy", you, Sir, are batshit motherfuckin insane!


And you're the one who can't answer questions! Fuck...I even told you what one of the answers wasn't!

[Howey]

I think the committee really telegraphed that by declaring it a failure days before the deadline.  And the talking head shows were remarkably meh about it.

Of course they were! Did anyone besides the batshit motherfuckin insane actually think the Republicans would agree to anything?

The only thing they'd agree to is Obama's resignation. Of course, then they'd say their against it. 

[Howey]

Now, what cuts did you think I was talking about?  The only actual cuts there were, the sequestration cuts, that cut 600 billion in defense and 600 billion in medicare.

Oh. That's an incorrect statement. Figure out where, liar.

[Howey]

First of all, I don't know if there will be any Republican attempts to circumvent the defense cuts.

wtf? Is this another lie or did you not read your original link from The Hill?

Before Obama took to the podium, congressional Republicans already had issued statements vowing to cancel out the $600 billion in automatic cuts. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham all promised to craft plans to void those reductions.

What the hell happened to you on that other forum to make you turn into Iceman?

[lil mike]

Nowhere in there is a "reason". There's an "explanation" of what Obama plans to do. Biiiiiig difference.

I think the explanation is the reason.  Obama said that he wanted to keep the pressure up on Congress.  Do you see a different reason?

No. My questions. Since you are inable to read them within context, I'll break it down to two questions.

Ahh...so you came back to call us crazy. I'm glad you're back because if ekg and are are merely "crazy", you, Sir, are batshit motherfuckin insane!


And you're the one who can't answer questions! Fuck...I even told you what one of the answers wasn't!

As I said, your questions were vague.

“Why is Obama doing this?”  Huh?

“What reason does he have to veto the Republicans attempts to circumvent the defense cuts?”

There aren’t any attempts to circumvent the defense cuts.  If there are attempts, I suspect they will be bipartisan.

Oh, and I didn’t call you crazy, just Ekg.  Under your new improved standards for the word liar, that makes you one.
And you didn’t even answer my questions.  So again, by your own standards, that makes you “batshit motherfuckin insane!”
So let's try those again.

Do you actually think there would be any cuts, even if Congress does nothing?

Is 600 million being cut from specific programs, or from the defense appropriations in general?

How could the 600 billion from Medicare be cut?

Oh. That's an incorrect statement. Figure out where, liar.

You are the one saying this is an incorrect statement.  Why don’t show me where?  And again, under the new improved Howey standards, if you don’t I guess that makes you a liar!   Hey, could you supply me this new definition of liar that you guys are using on this forum now?  I’m not hip to it but I’m trying to keep up.

wtf? Is this another lie or did you not read your original link from The Hill?

 

There isn’t any legislation to reduce those cuts, so no; I’m not a “liar” even by your new definition.
Point of order though, if there is any new legislation in the next year to do just that, would I become a “liar” retroactively?

[Howey]

I think

Therein lies your problem.

“Why is Obama doing this?”  Huh?

Simple enough of a question, even with your limited intelligence. Why is Obama doing this?

“What reason does he have to veto the Republicans attempts to circumvent the defense cuts?”

There aren’t any attempts to circumvent the defense cuts.  If there are attempts, I suspect they will be bipartisan.

Sheesh. I've already shown you where there are "attempts to circumvent the defense cuts"! And they're not bipartisan.

Oh, and I didn’t call you crazy, just Ekg. 

You called my questions crazy, hence you called me crazy.

But your questions, if not crazy, are rather vague.

How could the 600 billion from Medicare be cut?

Again, that is an incorrect statement.

[44nutman]

And the talking head shows were remarkably meh about it.

What do they know about politics?

[lil mike]

Therein lies your problem.

Insulting non-response... check!

Simple enough of a question, even with your limited intelligence. Why is Obama doing this?

The reason I called this question vague is that you didn't, and still won't, specify what exactly you are referring to.

Try again.  They say 3rd times the charm.

Sheesh. I've already shown you where there are "attempts to circumvent the defense cuts"! And they're not bipartisan.

No, you showed me where people were talking about it, not that they had put together any particular legislation to do it.

You called my questions crazy, hence you called me crazy.

If memory serves, I called your questions vague, not crazy.  So where exactly did I call your questions crazy?

Again, that is an incorrect statement.

That's because it's a question, not a statement!  Ha!  You kill me sometimes...

Let me add the two other questions you ignored:

Do you actually think there would be any cuts, even if Congress does nothing?

Is 600 million being cut from specific programs, or from the defense appropriations in general?

[ekg]

That was in the article I posted.  Allow me to relink for you.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-approriations/194963-obama-to-gop-lawmakers-on-voiding-sequestration-cuts-qnoq

Obama threatened to veto any bill Congress sends him that seeks to void the automatic defense cuts or an equal amount of domestic spending cuts.

huh,so Obama isn't just "vetoing any legislation that would void Defense cuts"  there seems to be more to that statement of yours already.. you wouldn't be trying to make Obama look bad would you?

why did you leave  the 'or an equal amount of domestic spending cuts.' off? Why just the emphasis on his vetoing any legislation that would void the defense cuts?

"There will be no easy off-ramps on this one," Obama said, adding "we need to keep the pressure up" to find a compromise on a broader debt-reduction plan.

The "only way" the deep automatic cuts will be avoided, the president said, if is "Congress gets back to work."[/i]

OHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh OK, I see.. He's not vetoing any legislation that would void Defense cuts, he's vetoing congresses attempts to get around their debt-reduction job..

see, wow.. it's a good thing I asked or I would have believed Fox news was right and Obama was soft on defense and trying to destroy this country by limiting the defense budget..

whew.. reading really is fundamental..

[ekg]

Of course they were! Did anyone besides the batshit motherfuckin insane actually think the Republicans would agree to anything?

heh.. Obama did 

but of course, he didn't expect them to egg out on their own rules.. he should have, but he's squashed that attempt by threatening a veto...

[Howey]

heh.. Obama did 

I don't know if he did or not. He was, after all, instructed to keep his hands off

The collapse of the supercommittee is not Obama’s fault. If he had pushed and prodded and cajoled and horse-traded, the result likely would have been the same. Perhaps even worse, in the sense that the partisan digging-in might have been even more entrenched.

For all the eleventh-hour, “where-was-Obama?” moaning, the bipartisan congressional directive to the White House as the supercommittee did its work was simple: Back off.

That’s right. The message from both Republican and Democratic members of the group was that presidential involvement could only be counterproductive. The more a particular approach was associated with the president, they argued, the harder it would be for Republicans to embrace it. Anything that looked like an Obama “win” would have been unacceptable to Republicans in an election cycle.

Amid the predictable clamor about presidential absence, it’s hard to remember that Obama submitted his own proposal to the supercommittee — much to the consternation of some Democratic members.

The president’s plan was disappointingly timid and riddled with accounting gimmicks, but it went far beyond the $1.2 trillion in savings that the supercommittee failed to produce. Somehow I don’t recall Republicans at the time praising Obama for bravely stepping forward to lead.

The blame game is a dreary enterprise, but if we’re destined to play yet another round, let’s go back and at least take a more nuanced view of the ledger.