Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
The man is in total denial.
Obama says his policies couldn't possible be wrong.Couldn't possibly be his policies that voters rejected.
A delusional President clinging to delusional ideas.
He's going to "work with Republicans". Will Republicans work with him?
I must say, Obama's flailing so badly in answering-- or rather circumventing-- questions (and it's surreal to see the MSM taking what seems like some perverse pleasure in his humiliation), that I actually feel-- fleetingly-- a little sorry for him.But oh my god, he is so full of shit. He still does not get it, at all, at all-- as TRO says, he is in total denial.
He seems very genuine to me in this presser- more so than he's seemed in quite a while. There's some pre-politcal battle positioning of course, but there's a lot of mea culpa's as well. In short, I'm buying it.(Sure, call me a sucker.)
He will talk and talk but that is to give us a false impression that he is a friend, when in fact he is an enemy that only listens to Marxist advisors and uses ChiTown mobster's tactics until he can finish us off.
"(Sure, call me a sucker.)"Okay ;)
There is a slight concession at the end... an admission that Americans are basically good.Does this indicate a change of heart?
(Sure, call me a sucker.) There's one born every seconds.
I wonder if that bit at the end signals the end of calling Americans bigots, racists, haters, etc.?That tactic certainly worked well for the Democrats, didn't it?I wonder if it's going to change?
There is a slight concession at the end... an admission that Americans are basically good.Don't worry, pissants like Peter Beinart will write how horrible, lunatic and lizard-brained the American people are.
I wonder if that bit at the end signals the end of calling Americans bigots, racists, haters, etc.?Nope. I fully expect Obama, the MSM and the Democrats to triple-down on all that starting mid-January.
There is nothing Obama can say other than "I resign" that I want to hear. When he comes on, I change the channel. That's about as "hopey and changey" as I get.
Brian,Everything Barry says is calculated nonsense. He has never shown any consistent commitment to telling the truth on any subject. Its just a "...tell them what they want to hear..." jag. He will repudiate it witnin seconds of [his'] leaving the podium.The man is an opportunist. A narcissic, self-absorbed politician. It is all about him. He will not keep his "promises" and he knows it.You should know it as well.
I interpret this as Obama opening up the possibility of going the Clinton post-1994 route- this press conference was no call to war by any stretch.My favorite part was his "admission" that businesses are the most important element of any recovery, and that he's screwed that part up.Of course it's an open question what will happen in the next year. But this is a reasonable start. I am thinking, however, about what Obama and Rand Paul might possibly agree on.
He seems to think he just didn't get in our faces enough and that last night wasn't about Obamacare and federal spending. Let's see how that works out for him.
He seems to think he just didn't get in our faces enough and that last night wasn't about Obamacare and federal spending. Let's see how that works out for him. Yup, it's time to double-down on big spending, tax increases, more regulations and whatever other anti-freedom measures he can think up of.
He still is pretty much saying, "I'll listen to Republicans if I like any of their ideas"Which is the same thing he said just before the Health Care Summit, where he told numerous Republicans with ideas to shut up.It turns out, he never really thinks Republicans have good enough ideas to listen to. But it isn't up to him anymore.
He is incapable of telling the truth, caring about actual Americans or being anything other than what he is - a Marxist muslim lover. Nobody is incapable of changing.Let's withhold judgment for a while and see what happens.This political moment isn't just about Obama. It's about the final assimilation of blacks into the body politic. This could be the moment when the majority of blacks give up the grievance and accept some limitations on government. This could be the moment when that Democratic Party's hold on blacks starts to slip.Give the guy just a few moments to absorb things and let's see if he changes.If he doesn't, throw him out.
BEK477: Maybe you're right. For the record, I'm against nearly everything he's done so far. And I have no doubt that he'll continue to fight for the lefty cause & world-view. But he's still the Prez for then next 2 years, and his attitude here appears to have been re-adjusted appropriately. I mean, you were never going to get a declaration of surrender.
Education! How many times did he suggest that was an area he and the Republicans would agree on? ...the same number of times I hoped fervently that the Republicans would stop funding the Dept of Education altogether.As for Obamacare, he wants the Repubs to tinker with it, change a couple of minor things and then he can call it compromise. I would call it distraction. Will the Republicans try to fix the law or will they try to repeal it? My fingers are crossed.
Ace: It would have been much shorter and much more honest if he just said what he really wants to say, "Let me be clear, I'm still awesome. If you aren't smart enough to get that, it's on you not me."Bingo.
He seems very genuine to me in this presser- more so than he's seemed in quite a while. There's some pre-politcal battle positioning of course, but there's a lot of mea culpa's as well. In short, I'm buying it.There are wea culpas. With Obama, any credit is his, any blame is shared by all.Also, the people just misunderstood the concept of not letting an emergency go to waste. The stimulus, auto bailouts, 2009 earmark-filled budget-- all of that was what he *had* to do on account of the emergency. We apparently misunderstand the whole remaking of America and the new foundation he's building for us to.
Yashu,it's surreal to see the MSM taking what seems like some perverse pleasure in his humiliationAnd don't you forget it. For me, "liberal" isn't just a political designation, but a description of a whole list of contradictive behaviors that can confuse the uninitiated. Liberals deny everything and can usually keep them well-hidden for a while but, under times of severe stress, you catch 'em in the dark out the corner of your eye. Eating their young, that kind of thing. Once you "get" it, then it's easier to act against them, and act against them we must. Unfortunately, because of their nature, only certain forms of corrective work. A "bloodbath" is a good way to start.
Sixty,"Omongrel" is one of those epithets I despise. Obama is an asshole, but that has nothing to do with his color or the fact that he comes from a black father and white mother. Knock it off.
Obama, via Politico:President Obama takes his last question of the presser: Will he be willing to change his leadership style? "Folks didn't have any complaints about my leadership style when I was running around Iowa for a year," Obama says.There's an "inherent danger in being in the White House, in being in the bubble," Obama says. "The track record has been that when I'm out of this place, that's not an issue," he adds.Seriously, wtf?People didn't complain about his leadership style when he was running around Iowa because he wasn't a leader of anything at the time.
Here's what I heard from Obama: even though my administration's policies have fundamentally rescued the country from catastrophe, set us on the right path, improved the economy and (in all the most important ways) moved us forward in the last 2 years, people out there are frustrated with us because they don't think we've made "enough" progress, "fast" enough, "far" enough, haven't gotten us all the way out of the hole "yet." His mea culpa amounts to: people are whiny impatient irrational babies who want their bottle NOW NOW NOW. This election = temper tantrum. But hey, I feel your pain, babies. I'll second the repugnance at the epithet "Omongrel."
BrianOf course it's an open question what will happen in the next year. But this is a reasonable start. I am thinking, however, about what Obama and Rand Paul might possibly agree on. They both won.Obama is a con man. Whenever he talks this is the thing you must remember. He has spent his entire life practicing. It's a con. Con men don't stop conning, they re-load.
Anyway, Obama is going to have to try something new: real persuasion of the American people, changing minds, bringing people over to his side. That is the only way to get Republicans to cooperate. Up until now he was free to denigrate anyone; he had the votes. Now we will see how good a leader he really is.
I'm willing to wait a few days or a few months to see what changes Obama makes.Doesn't mean I support him, but I'm curious to see whether he does change.
I'm willing to wait a few days or a few months to see what changes Obama makes.Doesn't mean I support him, but I'm curious to see whether he does change. Don't fall for the con job AGAIN.
The Zero's big problem is that David Axelrod isn't Dick Morris and he needs a Morris to tell him what to do.Assuming he listens to anybody.I mean he's always the smartest person in the room and Sort of God.
Zero's problem is that people have a long memory. His first 20 months are one of rancor, divisiveness, race-baiting and general demonization of enemies. The reason Clinton could turn things around in 1995 was he just wasn't ever THAT nasty. Obama can't overcome his horrific image.
Don't fall for the con job AGAIN. Never fell for the con job in the first place.I didn't vote for Obama.But, I'm interested in seeing how or whether he changes.Even if he is an opponent, it's a good idea to watch closely and wait to see what move he makes next.
When he said something like, "Before we were campaigning; now we are governing," did anyone else wonder if he had to edit out the word "ruling" before he answered?
Mr Obama does not appear to have Mr Clinton's feral feel for politics--I do not see Mr Obama triangulating as did WJC--he (Obama) is to doctrinaire to compromise or triangulate--He's now officially a lame duck IMO.My only hope is when he, like Jimmy Carter--does not deluge with an interminable series of books describing what a great person he was and why we were so stupid as to not see it.Obama is a demagogue--not a politician.
BTW listening to the Thom Hartman program on the way to work today, he said that Obama made 2 mistakes:- overfocused on health care and not the economy- stopped campaigning(huh wut???)I swear librulz are fucking lunatics.
Mr Obama does not appear to have Mr Clinton's feral feel for politics--I do not see Mr Obama triangulating as did WJC--he (Obama) is to doctrinaire to compromise or triangulate--He's now officially a lame duck IMO.Obama is a disaster who never should have been elected to POTUS. It's a tragedy that McCain was the best the GOP could nominate in 2008.
Okay wai wai wai wait a second, wait a second wait just oooooone second. You trying to tell me Obama said something?
"The track record has been that when I'm out of this place, that's not an issue," Um, his campaign stops in WI, PA, and VA didn't turn out so well.Not to mention in Mass in 2009...
BooYah!! From here in the back seat, I can see that we have gone from 0 to LAME DUCK in less than 2 years!w/v: sentsign - that was yesterday
Tort Reform.There is a health care initiative that ought to be debated in Congress and scored by CBO
Two things stand out for me as a citizen:When Paul Ryan spoke out intelligently at the Health Care Debate (which was in part used by Democrats as a smoke screen).Obama misrepresenting the Citizens United case in front of the justices during the State of The Union, riling up political support. Be a man, Barry. Rally the base. The unions, dyed in the wool liberals, the old civil rights apparatus, social democrats, big city hipsters and soccer moms swayed by NPR and the Times.Quit with the non-partisan talk.
Question: Is his health care overhaul in danger of being repealed?"We'd be misreading the election if we thought the American people want to see us for the next two years relitigate" the arguments of the past two years, Obama says.He is "happy to consider" Republican ideas on health care if they would produce (in his opinion) "faster and more effective reform," says the president.There you have it, voters.
I can listen to Obama's endless words no longer. I'll read the Drudge synopsis, but little else of his maleloquence will injure me.Let him prattle on and on and on; it's his only gift, meager as it is. But I have no use for it. I am readying for the Great Healthcare Necrosis, in which, barring a massive change in federal law, we will witness the DMVization of medical care for the masses.The elite will be fine, though.
MayBee-"There are wea culpas. With Obama, any credit is his, any blame is shared by all."That is a very perceptive comment. And absolutely nails Obama's conman schtick. I'd expect your observation to spread.
But, "we were in such a hurry to get things done, that we didn't change how things got done," Or...maybe you did the wrong things? Just a thought!
@AlexThe reason Clinton could turn things around in 1995 was he just wasn't ever THAT nasty. Clinton was smart enough to use savvy, experienced surrogates to do the partisan mud slinging and spinning. Genuine or not, Clinton can project an easy going, personal charm and empathy which Obama seems utterly devoid of and/or unable to summon on cue. Clinton also spoke plainly and could pull off a "good ole boy" buck & wing when he was in trouble. The only time he really lost it was the infamous post-Lewinsky finger pointing presser.Obama is as aloof, prickly and thin-skinned as Nixon. He seems to think that using snarky asides, droppin' a g here and adding a little slang there is connecting with ordinary people. Obama may be a charming man in private but we haven't seen it in public. Can you imagine Obama dealing with Clinton's or Bush's negative press?
The Globalist Illumanati are all in double down. They have installed a Non Natural Born front man to put the final nails in the coffin of the sovereignty of We the People. They are not going to fold. The Narcissist will blame the stupid voters. It can never be his fault.
"relitigate"?!Absolutely tone deaf and clueless.
Obama could have some of our most astute commenters [i.e Pogo, Palladian, Bruce Hayden]giving him really good advice but Obama would not take it. Why do you think Obama has Jarrett & Axelrod & Rahmbo as his consigliore? Maybe they tell him what he wants to hear?
I listened to the whole thing. He still can't answer simply. The two most startling comments:People didn't complain about his leadership style when he was running around Iowa because he wasn't a leader of anything at the time.As MayBee said, that's wasn't leading, it was campaigning. A telling remark in terms of self-perception.Second, when asked about past demonizing of business he started out with a statement that sure sounded like continued demonizing of business. Couldn't he have simply said:I haven't done of good job working with the businesses who create the jobs we needThese are just words. I'm not optomistic but I'll wait for something beyond words. As for the demonizing done on this blog and others re: Obama , its obnoxious noise.
Pogo - "Maleloquence" is a great word BTW. Perhaps also could be used to describe what other ill-intentioned leaders?
Mick is a cargo cultist and the impeachment of Obama is the Manna to be delivered by the gods.
David,Yeah, that was interesting. I think he made that point more than once-- that we shouldn't "relitigate" the arguments of the past 2 years, go back over old ground. I interpret this to mean that, as far as he's concerned, certain issues-- precisely the most bitterly contested issues of the last 2 years, where the GOP registered its deepest disagreement-- are now & forever settled, permanently legislated, fait accompli. "We won"-- and that's that. The case is not to be re-opened. The conversation/ argument on that is over. We put all that to bed. So shut up, and move on. (God knows this election wasn't about any of those old arguments & battles. Oh wait.)But hey, if you have some clever ideas to "tweak" the legislation, and you're "civil" about it, I'll indulge you by listening to you. I'm all about the listening. Love going around the country, meeting all sorts of people, bless their hearts, and just listening away.
I haven't done of good job working with the businesses who create the jobs we needNo Barry, you've been too busy demonizing every industry except for public sector unions & lawyers.Wall Street = GreedyInsurance = ScammersDoctors = taking out tonsils for kicksAnd on it goes...
Dear Barack Obama,Sir. Get out. Resign. Go home.Leave the rest of us alone. Please.
AJ - Thanks.For many, "dyseloquence" is descriptive enough, but BHO deserves the "mal-" prefix.
Obama Speaks:"We already had a large deficit, which I inherited."Um, yeah. And you tripled it!What an ass.
And you tripled it!What an ass.No he didn't dipshit!
We need to start a pool on when the first Hollywood idiot says, "I'm moving to Canada, France, yada yada."Or, are we too late?
No he didn't dipshit!Um, yes he did.I suggest you look it up, you deranged clown.
No he didn't dipshit!Fact:FY 2008: deficit was $459 billion.Fact:FY 2010: $1.294 trillion.
No he didn't dipshit!Yes he did, dipshit.I already set you straight in a previous thread.You claim that he inherited the FY2009 deficit. He didn't. He put his hand in was responsible for Porkulus (which has contributed significantly to BOTH the FY2009 and FY2010 deficits and will increase the FY2011 and beyond if it stands). He also signed off on $350B of TARP personally. And he voted for the FY2009 budget in the first place.Are you done lying yet?
"Folks didn't have any complaints about my leadership style when I was running around Iowa for a year," Obama says.Actually Barry, plenty of us had complaints & concerns about your "leadership style" (or lack thereof) in "Iowa."Further, your lack of self-awareness is staggering.
You claim that he inherited the FY2009 deficitAh yes. When a budget ends 8 months into your first term, it's not your budget. Did you need this in picture form? Perhaps an easy to read graph? I have it handy.
In FY2009, which began on September 1, 2008 and represents the Bush Administration's final budget, the budget deficit was $1.416 trillion. In FY2010, the first budget of the Obama Administration, the budget deficit was $1.291 trillion, a decline of $125 billion.SourceSo not are you only wrong about it tripling, it actually went down 125 billion. You're probably alone, I'm sure there are a good 3 or 4 voters out there than know this.
When a budget ends 8 months into your first term, it's not your budget.Hysterical.Um, it was a Democratic budget.You know, the party you vote for.
In FY2009, which began on September 1, 2008 and represents the Bush Administration's final budgetLaugh out loud funny.THAT BUDGET WAS WRITTEN BY DEMOCRATS.
So not are you only wrong about it triplingThe Democrats took control of Congress in Jan 2007 and wrote the budgets.The deficit went up from FY 2008 to FY 2010.What was the common denominator?Fact:FY 2008: deficit was $459 billion.Fact:FY 2010: $1.294 trillion.
So Garage, when we start complaining about the mess we inherited from Democrats.. you and Obama should just sit in the back and shut up. We don't need to hear from those that caused this mess. Better that you grab a broom and get to sweeping. Instead of sipping slurpees while we try to get the car out of the ditch. And no, you can't have the keys back - you don't know how to drive.Now you can suck my balls, bitch. You know you want it, you've been begging for them for the last year. Suck harder bitch.
Obama inherited a deficit he helped create. He was for the deficit before he was against it.
(Just kidding... I don't think he is really against it.)
Ah yes. When a budget ends 8 months into your first term, it's not your budget.Alvin Greene-level obliviousness.
If Obama agrees to extend all of the Bush cuts, I will agree he is FINALLY learning on the job.
Alvin Greene-level obliviousness.Just happy to point out the lies for you. No other president in history was responsible for the last president's budget. Except Obama. The great deficit hawks didn't even know the deficit went down 125 billion last year in Obama's first budget. It's always hard to tell if it's lies or just cluelessness though. In this case I'd say just lies.
Garage: A friendly suggestion: stick with anti war slogans and that sort of thing. Steer clear of economic or business discussions. Embarrassing.
So the CBO is wrong now? LOLUnless you can't read or count, the CBO link is pretty straightforward. It's actually been uncontroversial, at least up to this point. But again you guys play on a totally different playing field, you're own set of economic rules, and you're own version of reality.You can say with a straight face that Obama is responsible for Bush's budget? Embarrassing indeed.
... and, speaking of garage-level cluelessness (albeit in a racial context in this instance, rather than a fiscal one):CBS Photoshops Black/White ObamaPoor bastards genuinely have managed to drive themselves mad as hatters, haven't they...?
You can say with a straight face that Obama is responsible for Bush's budget?Hysterical.Your willful ignorance is embarrassing.You understand that "the budget" doesn't belong to the President, right?You understand that Congress controls spending, correct?You understand Congress authorizes spending and outlays, right?Because based on your silly, ignorant comments it appears you do not.The FY 2009 & FY 2010 budgets were written in their entirety by Democrats.What do they demonstrate?That under Democratic governance the deficit tripled.You are beclowning yourself.
The fiscal hawks that can't even count. Nice work kent. I'm proud of you. I'm guessing, without clicking, that link is to gatewaypundit, probably the most fact free site on the internet. AM I right?
AM I right?You're still a perfect 0-for-infinity in this thread, if that's what you're asking.
You understand that Congress controls spending, correct?You understand Congress authorizes spending and outlays, right?Like trying to explain a card trick to a spaniel, isn't it...?
Your willful ignorance is embarrassing.You understand that "the budget" doesn't belong to the President, right?The act of Congress approved June 10, 1921 (42 Stat. 20; 31 U.S.C. 11-16), providing for a national budget system, places upon the President the duty of transmitting to the Congress the Annual Budget, together with his estimates of receipts, and other expenditures and budgetary data.The president submits a budget proposal, congress sends it back. The president can either sign or veto as-is. Wondering if this was clear and simple enough for kent. I suspect not. I can see where all the trouble with numbers comes from though. Yes, like teaching a card trick to a spaniel.
But Bush is not responsible for a budget he signs? Jesus.
@KentHey, lets not be dissing spaniels, mine would rule the world if he had thumbs.
The president submits a budget proposal, congress sends it back.Hysterical!Um, yeah, that's what happens.In bozoville.Your comments are parody.
The president submits a budget proposalGreat.You know 4th grade civics.And then, the Congress promptly sets it aside and writes the budget.You can understand that simple concept, right?
But Bush is not responsible for a budget he signs? Jesus.But Obama isn't responsible for the spending of a government he is the executive of?OOPS, you crapped your pants again.I love how you're pretending that these "Bush Budgets" were locked down in stone even thought the were written by Jim Oberstar and Kent Conrad...
But Obama isn't responsible for the spending of a government he is the executive of?Of course he is. He did not sign the budget Bush signed however.
The president submits a budget proposalYou're seriously claiming not to being able to grasp the elementary distinction between a budget and a budget proposal, then? That's your silly, swing-and-a-miss "argument," boiled down to its clown shoes essence? Seriously...?Plainly, I've done BJM's spaniel a terrible injustice.
What Obama said: "I think people started looking at all this, and it felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people's lives than they were accustomed to."What it means: "I think frogs started feeling all this, and it felt as if the water was getter much warmer than they were accustomed to."What it implies: We need to heat the water up more slowly.
I didn't trust Obama when he was elected, but I gave the benefit of the doubt. It didn't take long for him to get the stimulus passed and for me to no longer doubt that he would willing destroy my country. No do overs, no second chances. He's lied and manipulated before, he'll do it again. Yes, I do know that for certain.
You're seriously claiming not to being able to grasp the elementary distinction between a budget and a budget proposal, then? Now that I told you how it works, tell me who signs it. And why? Why doesn't congress just sign it. Skip that, it's too hard. Just tell me who signs it.
He did not sign the budget Bush signed however.And then what?That budget was written by Democrats, including Obama!You have no point.Oh, and here is yet another fact for you:May 14, 2009 ... The House passed H.R. 2346, making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009Want to guess who was President in May, 2009?OOPS, you crapped your pants again.
I love this:Of course he is.Uh-huh. And here is "accountability" to a leftist: He did not sign the budget Bush signed however.Again, your posts are parody.
I thought the President had to sign the budget bill unless he vetoed it and then his veto was overriden.
the budget Bush signed however.Want to guess how many times the Democratic Congress amended the budget that Bush signed with Obama's approval?Plainly, I've done BJM's spaniel a terrible injustice.Heh. Exactly.
That reminds of my friend Vito.He always liked the girls to be on top.He called it "Overriding the Vito."Worked like a charm on all of those political chicks.
You're seriously claiming not to being able to grasp the elementary distinction between a budget and a budget proposal, then? Now that I told you how it works, tell me who signs it.Translation: "Yes. I am seriously claiming not being capable of grasping the rudimentary distinction between budget proposal (Executive Branch) and actual, concretized budget (Legislative Branch)."At this point, I may actually owe the spaniel monetary damages for defamation.
He called it "Overriding the Vito."Haha. I bet you didn't mean the Vito I used to worj with. He's pushing 400lbs easy. And just seen him today at the DMV.
At this point, I may actually owe the spaniel monetary damages for defamation.Oh fucking give it up. This is not complicated stuff. Bush signed it. It's not a proposal any longer after he signs it. Right? It then becomes a budget! He didn't have to sign it. But he did. Presumably it was because he wanted it and agreed with it enough to sign it? You've been parroted this crap on right wing blogs for so long, you can't bring yourself to admit it isn't true. More Google, less Jim Hoft will do you a world of good.
Hey, garage--All that aside, what part of the $1.5T do you disapprove of?
Oh fucking give it up.Temper, temper, kitten. This is not complicated stuff.Not for those of us actually paying attention during grade school civics class, no. Bush signed it. It's not a proposal any longer after he signs it. Right? It then becomes a budget!No, you silly, ineffectual little sock puppet, you. It most assuredly does not "become a budget" only upon arriving at the President's desk. It "becomes a budget" during the process of its crafting and refining in the House of Representatives, as explicitly spelled out -- in language simple enough even for the likes of you to eventually grok, doubtless, maybe -- in the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, with which you are (demonstrably) staggeringly, tragically unfamiliar.It takes more than simply stamping your widdle feetsies and petualantly declaring victory to actually achieve same, kitten."Wotta maroon! What a gulla bull! HAH!"/Bugs Bunny
Perhaps someone has said in the 110 comments, but will not do a Clinton, because he did not have Clinton's life experience when he came to office. Clinton had jobs and lost them. Clinton had won office, and lost them. Clinton came from a state that's pretty conservative. Obama has been gliding his whole life (if I hear one more person talk about his mom going on food stamps for a while in GRADUATE school I will puke). Clinton never EVER dismissed half of the electorate. He may not have agreed, but he understood them and respected the people. Obama has no understanding of the opposition (enemies) and does not respect views different from his own. He is not a liberal as I used to call myself. He is an ideologue. Thank you Ann Althouse for giving me this space to write for free. Please pardon my spelling. : )
No, you silly, ineffectual little sock puppet, you. It most assuredly does not "become a budget" only upon arriving at the President's deskI said it becomes an official budget, AFTER he fucking signs it! It then becomes law. With his signature on it. Let me bold the relevant part which you seem to have an extraordinarily hard time with: Step 1: President Submits a Budget Proposal; Step 2: Congress Passes a Budget Resolution; Step 3: Congressional Subcommittees 'Markup' Appropriation Bills; Step 4: The House and Senate Vote on Appropriation Bills and Reconcile Differences; Step 5: The President Signs each Appropriation Bill and the Budget is Enacted.
Let me bold the relevant partLook, just get back to me once you've actually read -- or laboriously moved your lips along to a big person's sympathetic reading aloud of, at least -- the 1974 Act previously cited, kiddo. It'll do you a damned sight more good, in the long run, than simply (read: erroneously) "bolding the relevant parts" of your slipshod, laugh-a-minute misunderstanding of the federal budget process ever will, believe me.And quit bawling, f'chrissakes.
Pro Tip:Excessive cute emoticons and juvenile taunts do not make a factual argument. Great exercise today though. We learned a president signs budgets into law. Now run along to Ace's place where you won't get fact checked or find anyone that knows what they're talking about.
Great exercise today*SNIP*Translation: Either -- A.) "Nope. Still haven't read it"; OR --B.) "Read it. Ohshitgottarunnow."Scamper, then, by all means.Heh.
As usual, a lecture, this time about civility from the Name Caller in Chief.He's going to work with the Repubs now and listen to the people.Right. Then his apparatchiks file suit against a Kentucky mine. Let the healing begin.
garage conveniently skips over the post where I pointed all the spending Obama did to increase the deficit for FY2009 and then LIES to pretend that deficit was part of Bush's budget.This isn't even honest disagreement or a different point of view: it's intentional and bad faith lying.It's one thing to spin. Quite another to just engage in baldfaced lying EVEN AFTER BEING CALLED ON IT.Some people deserve the benefit of the doubt. garage doesn't. He is, quite simply, a liar.
This isn't even honest disagreement or a different point of view: it's intentional and bad faith lying.As his panicky bolting from a simple reading of the CBIC Act of 1974 amply demonstrates, garage's "understanding" of the federal budgetary process is limited to having (possibly) sat most of the way through Schoolhouse Rock's "I'm Just a Bill" cartoon once, a decade or two ago.Ladies and gentlemen: these are the cut-rate Dickensian grifters and failed birthday clowns who routinely insist with rote, imbecillic placidity that THEY are the ones best entrusted with a national economy. They unfailingly skitter when confronted with cold, calm facts. Do so.
They unfailingly skitter when confronted with cold, calm facts. Do so.You are still here? You pretty convincingly lost this "argument", and honestly I don't even know what you are even arguing. I gave you the facts that I think you're arguing with yourself? Alternate Reality Dayz at Althouse goes unabated. garage conveniently skips over the post where I pointed all the spending Obama did to increase the deficit for FY2009 and then LIES to pretend that deficit was part of Bush's budget.Bush signed this budget. His name is on it. Obama did not sign it. Again, no fucking clue what you are even attempting to argue. It would be like arguing the next president in his first term is responsible for a budget Obama signed. Now does it make more sense?
Erkle: Did I do that?American Citizens: Oh yes. Yes, you did.Erkle: nuh-uh!!!
Where's Esteev today? Yesterday I said "Yes, it's a big referendum, but on gov't spending and intrusiveness." And he/she replied "And what intrusiveness do you mean?"Today, President Obama opines: "I think people started looking at all this, and it felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people's lives than they were accustomed to." Esteev, please call in to White House Central for updated talking points.
You are still here? You*SNIP*Still haven't read it, huh? ROTFLMAO!!!
Bush signed this budget. His name is on it. Obama did not sign it.Um, the Democrats wrote the budget (this included Obama) and, can you graps this, here it comes:THE DEMOCRATS AMENDED THE "SIGNED" BUDGET, ADDED SPENDING, AND OBAMA SIGNED SAID SPENDING INCREASES.Period.Obama tripled the deficit.That is a fact.You are a clown.That is also a fact.
It would be like arguing the next president in his first term is responsible for a budget Obama signed.Er, considering Obama was in the Congress that wrote the budget, and he signed supplemental appropriations bills amending the budget, yes, he is responsible.You leftists don't like accountability, however.The reaction to the election results shows that.Clearly.
Possibly we're simply not speaking slowly enough for Clown Shoes' benefit here, Jay. Let me give it another try:How. Does. The. Congressional. Budget. And. Impoundment. Control. Act. Of. 1974. Detail. The. Budgetary. Process. You. Cowardly. Little. Nutsack?Now: prepare yourself for the increasingly hysterical armwaving and evasions, in response. ;)
RE: sixty grit, I think Obama has all the qualities of a good dog, except bravery and loyalty.
Post a Comment