President Obama

[SteveW]

Is there a "Takes Toys and Goes Home" button?

[AMDScooter]

I'll give it to you Scoot, you've got the slime machine down pat. You cut and pasted one of my quotes out of context, didn't even provide a link to it even though all of otoc's quotes had links, and then defend your antics with 'WHAT WHO ME?" BS. Classic.

I think you'll be the first person I put on ignore. Ever. I'll let the other guys deal with you now that I have that luxury.

If this is the way you deal with being wrong have at it. Personally, I won't miss the whining.

[kbohip]

You are friggin pathetic for cherry picking a statement out of my post and then saying I came clean....maybe you should post what I said about the second chart that was posted before you drag me into your little rant Scooter. I'll wait with baited breath for your edit before I do the editing.

It's "bated breath" BD. I hate to be a stupid grammar nazi, but I made the same mistake as you did here on the forum years ago. It was Orang who informed me of my mistake btw.

[otoc]

I think it was tucker who nailed it by saying something about how you love to tell us what we think and why we say what we say.

You're in a fantasy of your own mind, dude.

New definitions:

Ignore: speechless.

Ignored: tore someone a new one.

BBA: 18% of GDP - hey we can balance the budget in one sentence.

humor: self appointment.

Getting called on you posting through Scooter: my fantasy
No answer to a point I made: Rectum and dropped the point
Called on what BBA will do: quip still no reality

Yeah Dutch, you are good at dishing it, but a bit sensitive at taking it. I'm still laughing at digs like this for I know the game.

Now if you wish to join the adults in the room, please address the point I made about the grand 18% cap of the BBA that is tied into revenue. We don't have revenue that is 18% of the GNP coming in, and with the no tax increase pledge to the Tea Party that means a federal budget equal to 1955. That's the fantasy along with the fact that the GOP won't do anything to bring down the National Debt with all this revenue neutral posturing. You keep droning on with the BBA like it's needed or anything more than the soundbite it is to make the Tea Party think the GOP is offering anything based on reality. But that's Norquist's game isn't it? To cut the Federal governement in half without talking how it's done or who gets affected.

Have a good one. Nice to see you are still talking to me, I was getting lonely...

[otoc]

Is there a "Takes Toys and Goes Home" button?

Is there a button for posters who don't contribute to a conversation but do come in with personal insults all the time of late? So BD is a child for seeing through the game of cherry picking for half truths and duplicitious standards? You know Steve, I ignore you when it's directed towards me because I love the Rickles humor and know that any response I make will only drive a thread further off track, but this one is not called for.

[otoc]

If this is the way you deal with being wrong have at it. Personally, I won't miss the whining.

Gee scooter, you really are proud of this alternate universe you've created for yourself, aren't you? Or is it your need to express your opinion is so great you don't care if it's even read? Who are you writing this to? Someone who put you on ignore?

[otoc]

Had I made such a mistake you would have surely pointed it out. Trying to attribute quotes from last year directly to today's budget discussion is laughable. Sole ownership = otoc.



Out comes the boilerplate otoc "absolute fact" claims. Hilarious. But it does not change the facts that:

1) it did not address the debt at all.
2) it would have increased the deficit by $10 to $13 Trillion.
3) it was unanimously voted it down in the Senate .

or is your contention of an "absolute fact" over my use of the work embarrassing?



Cannot refute the list.. attack the messenger. Whocouldaseenthatcoming?



Links? You really think it's necessary for me to use links and quotes to prove your far left/boilerplate libberal rhetoric mirrors (D)emorat talking points? Seriously? Heck, remove the names and it's be hard to differentiate your words from those of Wasshername Schutzie. Links???



Mmmkay.



Seeing as it was in jest.. I figure we'll both have a good laugh while you sit there and fester.



I'd say keep guessing.. though history shows you are not too good at it. But hey.. that never stopped you before.



That chart sure looks familiar...

I remember now...

http://forums.pcper.com/showpost.php...&postcount=120



I guess I could ask the same question I asked BD.. who was in charge of Congress at those times? Aero posted a chart that was a hair more insightful than BD's.



And BD came clean a short while later:



Not to worry otoc... I'd never think to use chart you are currently pimping as evidence of those (D)emorat talking points you say I need links to prove you use. The chart you posted is the obviously the work of one of them self thankin centrist/libertarians... despite the glaring similarities to the hyper partisan and admittedly (D) skewed chart in the other post. So again.. rest assured.. I'd never use this as an example.



Grammarcop time?





I know I sometimes mistakenly interchange the spelling when I post.. no one seems to have a hard time getting my point but I will try to be more careful for your benefit.

Lets' take this from the end and work backwards my friend.

Asking a question is not being a grammercop. I didn't tell you to do anything. I think all your namecalling is coloring how you perceive things.

I can't help but notice that whenever your position gets challenged you shift into Saul-mode and need to color me with humorous positioning to show how I'm not pinned to your extreme right or how hard it is to pin down my beliefs. I thought we established that most of the world is to your left. You stand proudly alone since you guys have done your best at insulting anyone here with a differing opinion until they tire of even responding. Worked with BD, didn't it?

Considering the latest polls on the performance of the GOP congress have brought a disapproval rating of over 70%, by your thinking, the world must be a lonely place with all those Democrats. No wonder you need to make this constant point in my direction without offering proof.

I also notice you ran from my point that the track records of GOP presidents since Nixon are pretty bad when it comes to the Federal debt. So now it's not about Presidents and what they sign? It's about Congress and what they present? OK. That makes Obama look like the strongest president we've had in my memory for not going along with Congress. Glad we agree there. But hey, wise one, as far as presidents go with regard to the National Debt?

And no, you don't have to supply anything other than you sock-puppet GOP links. I, on the other hand have a choice for how much time I wish to waste fact checking it and know that the adults in the room see through the game you play where you still can't back up your accusations toward me in grand Saul style with anything other than comments you say are there to cause me to "fester". Calm down Mr. Amplify.

So scooter, have fun with holding one party to historic actions while asking for the get out of jail card for yours. I pointed out how it wasn't embarrassing to Obama, and will ignore the new shift in your question for what it is, a shift, as was the current budget process where the GOP is doing nothing to address the National Debt but pandering to the Tea Party with the nonbinding contract they signed. All the while they offer ridiculous bills that either cut the federal government back to levels of my childhood or don't have a chance in hell for passing. Shift, as in Obama is now doing exactly what the GOP wished for, reduce spending while addressing the National Debt and all you can do is focus on historic events.

The last time I checked you still haven't addressed where the Democrats are calling on business to end the catch 22, while all you try is to bully me around with your orders to waste my time fact checking you GOP statements of "fact".

Or that your guy Mitch hasn't shifted from his statement that the goal of your party is to get Obama out, and deadlocking Congress has been their MO since he said it.

[BlackDragon24]

I, on the other hand have a choice for how much time I wish to waste fact checking

Gee Otoc, you must not like checking facts.

At least that's what some posters will think since you wrote those words down in a row. I mean if you didn't write those down then what could you have possibly meant?

[AAdjuster]

Gee Otoc, you must not like checking facts.

At least that's what some posters will think since you wrote those words down in a row. I mean if you didn't write those down then what could you have possibly meant?

Not properly fact checking, is the same as telling a lie.

A LIE TOLD LONG ENOUGH BECOMES A FACT.

[otoc]

Gee Otoc, you must not like checking facts.

At least that's what some posters will think since you wrote those words down in a row. I mean if you didn't write those down then what could you have possibly meant?

lol, yeah, I obviously don't like fact checking and therefore lie.

[BlackDragon24]

Not properly fact checking, is the same as telling a lie.

A LIE TOLD LONG ENOUGH BECOMES A FACT.

[AMDScooter]

Sure seems to be an epidemic among you libberals to waste a lot of keystrokes to avoid addressing inconvenient facts....



**EDIT**

Actually.. even though you refuse to address facts, lemme address this alternate reality post you've created here.

Lets' take this from the end and work backwards my friend.

Asking a question is not being a grammercop. I didn't tell you to do anything. I think all your namecalling is coloring how you perceive things.

Says the guy as prone to name calling as anyone else in this forum. The same guy who goes on in this very post to call me a "GOP Sock puppet". Do tell... but watch the fall off that high horse.

I can't help but notice that whenever your position gets challenged you shift into Saul-mode and need to color me with humorous positioning to show how I'm not pinned to your extreme right or how hard it is to pin down my beliefs.

Love the new tact. Get called on the mat enough times about your Alinsky tactics you now try to attribute them to others. Better have a good look at the "projection" defnition again.

I thought we established that most of the world is to your left.

We? Did you and your pal patriot4us hold a vote and fail to invite anyone else? OTOC consensus of one stated as fact... that's the "established" norm.

You stand proudly alone since you guys have done your best at insulting anyone here with a differing opinion until they tire of even responding. Worked with BD, didn't it?

So which is it.. am I alone? Or is there a group of us whose opinions disrupt you libberals alternate reality so much that you habitually threaten us with paradise by claiming you are "done... through... ignoring..." or whatever the flavor of the day is? You guys sure have issues dealing with differing opinions.

Considering the latest polls on the performance of the GOP congress have brought a disapproval rating of over 70%, by your thinking, the world must be a lonely place with all those Democrats. No wonder you need to make this constant point in my direction without offering proof.

Lovely. "by MY thinking" eh? Funny.. whenever you start with that phrase it's minus an actual quote where you can attribute said "thoughts" to me. Classic otoc. Attributing your thoughts as a fact for me... then beating that poor strawman down.

But lets continue with the point you are trying to argue both sides of here for a second. Congressional approval has been low for some time. But let's put that into perspective. Under the complete control of your party the approval of congress hit single digits. IIRC it was an all time low of 9%. If we're hovering at 30% now I'd say while still bad.. it's a pretty darn good improvement since new management took over.

But do go on about "offering proof"...

I also notice you ran from my point that the track records of GOP presidents since Nixon are pretty bad when it comes to the Federal debt. So now it's not about Presidents and what they sign? It's about Congress and what they present? OK.

Oh.. so that was your point posting that graph that your libberal pal was floggin about in the other thread. Strange that you would use that graph alone if that was really your intent. If I did not know better I'd say you tried unsuccessfully to flog a really bad (D) talking point graph and got called out on it just as BD did. Oh wait... that is what happened. Nice try at revisionist history though.

That makes Obama look like the strongest president we've had in my memory for not going along with Congress. Glad we agree there. But hey, wise one, as far as presidents go with regard to the National Debt?

I see you decided to take me up on that offer for the turbo off the Saab... that's some spin you have there. "We agree" you decree... lol. Perhaps you can remind the rest of us with slightly less rose colored glasses and far better memories... when exactly did bamma not go along with congress back when Pelosi/Reid were running the show? You know.. when your party was busy spending trillions like drunken sailors by passing bad bills none of them bothered to read. Seems to me (and those darn inconvenient facts back me up again) that your prez only started going against Congress when the GOP took over and started talking about fiscal responsibility.

And no, you don't have to supply anything other than you sock-puppet GOP links. I, on the other hand have a choice for how much time I wish to waste fact checking it and know that the adults in the room see through the game you play where you still can't back up your accusations toward me in grand Saul style with anything other than comments you say are there to cause me to "fester". Calm down Mr. Amplify.

Project much? Yup.. you have a choice. And you habitually "choose" to ignore facts. Attack the source & ignore the facts.. that's the ticket!

So scooter, have fun with holding one party to historic actions while asking for the get out of jail card for yours. I pointed out how it wasn't embarrassing to Obama, and will ignore the new shift in your question for what it is, a shift, as was the current budget process where the GOP is doing nothing to address the National Debt but pandering to the Tea Party with the nonbinding contract they signed. All the while they offer ridiculous bills that either cut the federal government back to levels of my childhood or don't have a chance in hell for passing. Shift, as in Obama is now doing exactly what the GOP wished for, reduce spending while addressing the National Debt and all you can do is focus on historic events.

Alternate reality is the theme. The GOP has provided several plans. Your party has none. Your party did not bother to pass a budget last time around and has produced nothing from the senate in 800+ days. Your president has done nothing but offer up speeches.

"Historic actions...."

The last time I checked you still haven't addressed where the Democrats are calling on business to end the catch 22, while all you try is to bully me around with your orders to waste my time fact checking you GOP statements of "fact".

Well excuse me for ignoring your attempts to change the subject to addressing yet another logic defying (D) talking point while you ignore addressing the facts I post up.

Or that your guy Mitch hasn't shifted from his statement that the goal of your party is to get Obama out, and deadlocking Congress has been their MO since he said it.

As I've clarified several times now, you continually failing to be able spin a months old comment directly to the current budget debate is not my issue.

[Dutchcedar]

^^^ Look scooter... you've just received your 116th lesson in how to properly conduct yerself when debating, with the 116th example of I do's and I don'ts from the godfather of centrist thinkology. I think the great weezard even gave him a certificate in thinkology.

I know, so far, over the course of gad knows how many years, he hasn't persuaded anything more than a gnat of anything... but nevertheless, its time fer you to see the light.

Words matter.

Forget that Carterthink that less is more.

Its a new age.

More words = more truth.

And bears don't shit in the woods.

[tucker]

Sure tucker. Post any picture you wish. I read that guy's website. He makes a lot of conclusions based on his views. None offer support to my points made to you.

Interesting you should bring up posting pictures. Seems my past record is responding when you guys initiate that process. No joy here.

Congress Reminds Obama He's President, Not King


By GEORGE F. WILL
Posted 07/25/2011 06:45 PM ET


Between 6 p.m. Friday and 4 p.m. Sunday, the nation began a constitutional course-correction. The current occupant's vanity and naivete — a dangerous amalgam — are causing the modern presidency to buckle beneath the weight of its pretenses. And Congress is reasserting its responsibilities.

At his Friday news conference-cum-tantrum, Barack Obama imperiously summoned congressional leaders to his presence: "I've told" them "I want them here at 11 a.m."

By Saturday, his administration seemed to be cultivating chaos by suddenly postulating a new deadline: The debt-ceiling impasse must end before Asian markets opened Sunday evening Eastern time, lest the heavens fall.

Those markets opened; the heavens held. The faux deadline, reportedly invoked at a Saturday White House meeting by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who should resign, inevitably seeped into the media and invited overseas panic, thereby risking the nation's currency, for brief tactical advantage.

Amid these tawdry episodes, House Speaker John Boehner signaled constitutional sanity regained: "Congress will forge a responsible path forward." Congress. Obama has marginalized himself.

Constitution's 'Defect'

Inordinate self-regard is an occupational hazard of politics and part of the job description of the rhetorical presidency, this incessant tutor. Still, upon what meat doth this our current Caesar feed that he has grown so great that he presumes to command leaders of a coequal branch of government?

He once boasted (June 3, 2008) that he could influence the oceans' rise; he must be disabused of comparable delusions about controlling Congress. When he was a lecturer on constitutional law, he evidently skipped the separation of powers doctrine.

But, then, because this doctrine impedes the progressives' goal of unleashing untrammeled government, they have long loathed it: Woodrow Wilson, the first president to criticize the American founding, considered the separation of powers the Constitution's "radical defect."

It has, however, rescued the nation from Obama's preference for a "clean" debt-ceiling increase that would ignore the onrushing debt tsunami. There are 87 reasons for Obama's temporary conversion of convenience to the cause of spending restraint — the 87 House Republican freshmen.

Their inflexibility astonishes and scandalizes Washington because it reflects the rarity of serene fidelity to campaign promises. Obama — a demagogue for an age of smooth surfaces; Huey Long with a better tailor — pretended Friday to wonder whether Republicans "can say yes to anything." Well.

House Republicans said yes to "cut, cap and balance." Senate Democrats, who have not produced a budget in more than 800 days, vowed to work all weekend debating this. But Friday they voted to table it, thereby ducking a straightforward vote on the only debt-reduction plan on paper, the only plan debated, the only plan to receive Democratic votes.

Obama's last venture into public specificity was his February budget, which proposed accelerating the nation's descent into debt. It was rejected by the Senate 97-0.

Presidential Mendacity

Although histrionically impatient with Republicans' refusal to accept certain measures, Obama insists he will "not accept" a debt-ceiling deal that does not increase income taxes. Surely this is the meaning of his July 11 words: "I do not want, and will not accept, a deal in which ... I'm able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don't need."

To understand Republican distrust of him, consider, from the many examples of his paltering with the truth, his July 15 news conference, wherein he veered from the subject of the debt ceiling to say "I've got three trade deals ready to go" yet they are "being held up because some folks don't want to provide Trade Adjustment Assistance to people who may be displaced as a consequence of trade." The facts are:

TAA, which has existed since 1962, enjoys bipartisan support. The 2009 stimulus increased it, supposedly temporarily, and it did revert to pre-stimulus levels in February. Now, however, Democrats suddenly insist that TAA's stimulus levels be made permanent.

Obama's wee mendacity about TAA illustrates the large stakes of the debt debate, which is a proxy for an epochal argument about the nature of American governance. Obama's money gusher has driven federal spending from under 20% of GDP to almost 25%. Democrats consider this the new normal — until it becomes the base from which they launch their next surge of statism.

This fact refutes those who loftily dismiss the debt-ceiling debate as much ado about not very much. And those who are loftily contemptuous of today's supposedly "dysfunctional" Washington have forgotten that the branches of government are supposed to be jealous rivals.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...id=579364&p=1#

[SteveW]

Is there a button for posters who don't contribute to a conversation but do come in with personal insults all the time of late? So BD is a child for seeing through the game of cherry picking for half truths and duplicitious standards? You know Steve, I ignore you when it's directed towards me because I love the Rickles humor and know that any response I make will only drive a thread further off track, but this one is not called for.

Nice work here - first week back and the forum is back to a Chaotic Firestorm - essentially, where it was when you left......

Cheers!!!