Forums Register login What's New?
Furlough is coming
Page 10 of 13
  1. Going to be interesting to see how all the Quantitative Easoning turns out. QE3 coming at you. Don see how printing money out of thin air can be good to the economy in the long run.
  2. Did you not just suggest that Obama was "bad" by signing for the cuts?

    What was his alternative, send it back to Congress? Time to move ahead and live with the consequences. Were the republicans so naive as to imagine that there would be no consequences for spending cuts?

    They are Congress' where there are two gridlocked parties.
  3. No, friend. What I said was Obama has said they were bad. Why then did he sign them?


    If he thought, as he now claims, that the cuts would have catastrophic effects on the economy, then yes the bill should have been vetoed. I don't know about you, but in my world if I sign on off on something I become accountable for it. I guarantee that if I send something up to CFO that has errors or is of faulty methodology, "the staff accountant fucked it up" of "IT gave us bad data" are not going to be an excuses.

    A system of checks and balances doesn't work if there is no accountability.

    What a convenient excuse for a President who has no regard for accountability. As much as I disliked George W. Bush, he at least didn't attempt to blame his policy calls on someone else.

    Truman's moto was "the buck stop here." Obama's moto is "pass the buck."
    KyleK likes this.
  4. You keep repeating yourself. I told you why I thought he did. If you need to know more, then ask Obama.

    You boys are as dumb as a bag of hammers. Obama shined you Republican hayseeds again.

    Brer' Rabbit said "Please Please, Brer' Fox, please don't throw me in that briar patch!" . . .

    So Brer' Boener tossed Brer' Obama right into the briar patch, which was right where he wanted to be.

    Obama didn't veto the sequester plan because he didn't have to, it was automatic if no plan was passed. Obama got exactly what he wanted. Now he will make smart cuts that preserve much of catastrophic scenario and gain much credit while the Republicans cry foul because no tax money was redistributed upward and Congress gets a another black eye.
  5. You cannot make this dubious claim this without some evidence. In any case, it doesn't matter. What mattered is that our President either lied to us or his own people lied to him and he was gullible.

    Untrue. Our inspectors agreed that they had seen it all. Clintons attempts to do more inspections after 10 years were just to piss off Saddam and keep a thumb on him.

    I'm not the one who proclaimed that Obama's faults have been worse than Bush or Nixon. I've just been proving that guy wrong. Glad for your assistance in doing just that.

    Bottom line . . . Bush personally told us that Saddam had WMD's (Rumsfeld told us "And we know where they are") but they did not exist. It was a huge lie or a huge error that led to a huge war.

    One of Obama's ambassadors told us that Benghazi was a riot, not a deliberate assault. It was either a lie or an error and it has led to . . . nothing at all.

  6. Right he signed a bill he thinks is shitty to blame shitty bill on someone else. That doesn't make sense. You know what you call a President who enacts shitty legislation? A shitty President.



    Tell me how is he going to make the cuts he wants to make? He has no authority to do so. He doesn't even want to make cuts, he wants to raise taxes. If you think he is pulling some Sith Lord fast one on anyone, then you don't know what is going on.
  7. If that was supposed to be an argument, you fail badly.

    Watch and learn, padawan.
  8. red55 said: ↑
    “Obama didn't veto the sequester plan because he didn't have to, it was automatic if no plan was passed. Obama got exactly what he wanted. Now he will make smart cuts that preserve much of catastrophic scenario and gain much credit while the Republicans cry foul because no tax money was redistributed upward and Congress gets a another black eye

    BS Red Obama refused to consider a bill that would give the power to make cuts smart ones or not. He doesn't want to be blamed for cuts. Call it smart politics if you will but it is an abdication of leadership on his part.

    You also said:
    I'm not the one who proclaimed that Obama's faults have been worse than Bush or Nixon. I've just been proving that guy wrong. Glad for your assistance in doing just that. Neither did I sport. Quit putting words in my mouth.
    One of Obama's ambassadors told us that Benghazi was a riot, not a deliberate assault. It was either a lie or an error and it has led to . . . nothing at all. You call an ambassador and 3 brave americans murder nothing? That is low even for those who blindly follow Obama.​
  9. Are you drunk? You are suggesting that the Benghazi attack was a consequence of Rices remarks, as the Iraq War was a consequence of Bush's! Her remarks came after the attack, you know! And before the entire picture was clear. The only consequences of her remarks are political and come from the far right wing.
  10. Are you suggesting that Obama will 1) Usurp power that the Constitution grants to congress in order to make "smart cuts" and 2) Then change his stated policy goals of not cutting anything and increasing revenues to compensate for the net change in the budget?

    Those are the two things that must happen for the scenario you laid out in post 95 to happen. Obama has no authority to make budget cuts, and refused a bill that would have allowed him to make specific cuts. You are looking foolish and grasping trying to turn the sequester into some type of grand political victory. It was a huge Obama fuck up, and now he is trying to pass the buck.
    Winston1 and shane0911 like this.
(You have insufficient privileges to reply here.)
Page 10 of 13