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?
