Sequester will be no big deal...

[Darkwind]

Jobs are lost and jobs are created from different ideologies. He's in power and he's made some very good (powerful) moves.

Expect the changes whether you like them or not.

He hasn't made a good move since he left the community organizer job. This country is in a bigger mess than when he took office.

So, you don't like his changes... so far. Some opinions will be lost and some will be gained. Like the jobs.

So, you wish to be dishonest as well? So be it.

However you cannot run away from the fact that the Dems and Obama are all screaming jobs lost BECAUSE of sequestration and you know it is not true. Saying some jobs will, some won't is like saying some bread is white and some bread is not. In other words, you've conceded the point and now are arguing for the mere sake of argument.

Enjoy.

 

[UKRider]

He hasn't made a good move since he left the community organizer job. This country is in a bigger mess than when he took office.

So, you don't like his changes... so far. Some opinions will be lost and some will be gained. Like the jobs.

So, you wish to be dishonest as well? So be it.

However you cannot run away from the fact that the Dems and Obama are all screaming jobs lost BECAUSE of sequestration and you know it is not true. Saying some jobs will, some won't is like saying some bread is white and some bread is not. In other words, you've conceded the point and now are arguing for the mere sake of argument.

Enjoy.

It's not about me.

You think something is dishonest and I don't. He's the President and has the mandate.

You're somewhere else.

 

[bripat9643]

I guess your job is not in jeopardy; it is a big deal to those who will lose their's. It must be nice to be so callous.

They're all ticks on the ass of society, so I'm overjoyed that they're losing their jobs. I'd like to see a lot more of them lose their jobs, like 90% of them.

Only a Democrat would feel sorry for a tick sucking the blood from his crotch. Normal people would just apply a match to its ass.

 

[Darkwind]

So, you don't like his changes... so far. Some opinions will be lost and some will be gained. Like the jobs.

So, you wish to be dishonest as well? So be it.

However you cannot run away from the fact that the Dems and Obama are all screaming jobs lost BECAUSE of sequestration and you know it is not true. Saying some jobs will, some won't is like saying some bread is white and some bread is not. In other words, you've conceded the point and now are arguing for the mere sake of argument.

Enjoy.

It's not about me.

You think something is dishonest and I don't. He's the President and has the mandate.

You're somewhere else.

the man lied to you and you don't think it is dishonest?

Some dictionary you have there.

 

[bripat9643]

I guess your job is not in jeopardy; it is a big deal to those who will lose their's. It must be nice to be so callous.

Do you care about all the jobless people who cannot work because of Obama? Callous...what a laugh.

NO ONE will be losing a job because of sequestration.

When did libturds ever care about anyone who wasn't sucking on the government tit?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So, you don't like his changes... so far. Some opinions will be lost and some will be gained. Like the jobs.

So, you wish to be dishonest as well? So be it.

However you cannot run away from the fact that the Dems and Obama are all screaming jobs lost BECAUSE of sequestration and you know it is not true. Saying some jobs will, some won't is like saying some bread is white and some bread is not. In other words, you've conceded the point and now are arguing for the mere sake of argument.

Enjoy.

It's not about me.

You think something is dishonest and I don't. He's the President and has the mandate.

You're somewhere else.

Mandate?

The voters gave him a mandate by electing him but saddling him with a Congress that is strongly divided?

It is safe to say that you do not know what mandate means.

 

[Darkwind]

I guess your job is not in jeopardy; it is a big deal to those who will lose their's. It must be nice to be so callous.

Do you care about all the jobless people who cannot work because of Obama? Callous...what a laugh.

NO ONE will be losing a job because of sequestration.

When did libturds ever care about anyone who wasn't sucking on the government tit?

It appears they don't care about honesty either. What a surprise.

 

[UKRider]

So, you wish to be dishonest as well? So be it.

However you cannot run away from the fact that the Dems and Obama are all screaming jobs lost BECAUSE of sequestration and you know it is not true. Saying some jobs will, some won't is like saying some bread is white and some bread is not. In other words, you've conceded the point and now are arguing for the mere sake of argument.

Enjoy.

It's not about me.

You think something is dishonest and I don't. He's the President and has the mandate.

You're somewhere else.

Mandate?

The voters gave him a mandate by electing him but saddling him with a Congress that is strongly divided?

It is safe to say that you do not know what mandate means.

President Obama has the mandate and he defers to history, not you or me. If he can force Congress to do what he wants, then he's pretty powerful.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It's not about me.

You think something is dishonest and I don't. He's the President and has the mandate.

You're somewhere else.

Mandate?

The voters gave him a mandate by electing him but saddling him with a Congress that is strongly divided?

It is safe to say that you do not know what mandate means.

President Obama has the mandate and he defers to history, not you or me. If he can force Congress to do what he wants, then he's pretty powerful.

He has no mandate.

But if he can get the weak-willed Boehner led GOP House to cave in to most of his legislative agenda and wishes, then he does have the authority to lead and he will gain a modicum of "success" at least as he measures that notion. Whether what he gets passed is consistent with the restraints imposed by the Constitution is another matter.

 

[UKRider]

Mandate?

The voters gave him a mandate by electing him but saddling him with a Congress that is strongly divided?

It is safe to say that you do not know what mandate means.

President Obama has the mandate and he defers to history, not you or me. If he can force Congress to do what he wants, then he's pretty powerful.

He has no mandate.

But if he can get the weak-willed Boehner led GOP House to cave in to most of his legislative agenda and wishes, then he does have the authority to lead and he will gain a modicum of "success" at least as he measures that notion. Whether what he gets passed is consistent with the restraints imposed by the Constitution is another matter.

He's President of the United States of America in a second term. You say he has no mandate.

OK

 

[IlarMeilyr]

President Obama has the mandate and he defers to history, not you or me. If he can force Congress to do what he wants, then he's pretty powerful.

He has no mandate.

But if he can get the weak-willed Boehner led GOP House to cave in to most of his legislative agenda and wishes, then he does have the authority to lead and he will gain a modicum of "success" at least as he measures that notion. Whether what he gets passed is consistent with the restraints imposed by the Constitution is another matter.

He's President of the United States of America in a second term. You say he has no mandate.

OK

You claim that the fact that he got elected (and re-elected) constitutes a "mandate."

You clearly do not understand the import of the word.

 

[UKRider]

He has no mandate.

But if he can get the weak-willed Boehner led GOP House to cave in to most of his legislative agenda and wishes, then he does have the authority to lead and he will gain a modicum of "success" at least as he measures that notion. Whether what he gets passed is consistent with the restraints imposed by the Constitution is another matter.

He's President of the United States of America in a second term. You say he has no mandate.

OK

You claim that the fact that he got elected (and re-elected) constitutes a "mandate."

You clearly do not understand the import of the word.

I don't claim anything. He's President and he's doing what he said he would try to do.

He was voted in saying he would do those things and he was voted in on a second term.

That's mandate enough for my opinion. Clearly it's not enough for yours. Like I said.

OK

 

[IlarMeilyr]

He's President of the United States of America in a second term. You say he has no mandate.

OK

You claim that the fact that he got elected (and re-elected) constitutes a "mandate."

You clearly do not understand the import of the word.

I don't claim anything. He's President and he's doing what he said he would try to do.

He was voted in saying he would do those things and he was voted in on a second term.

That's mandate enough for my opinion. Clearly it's not enough for yours. Like I said.

OK

Nope. He is doing what he said he would do and avoiding doing what he said he would do and doing what he said he wouldn't do. Nobody voted "for" those latter two options.

And if they WANTED him to "do" what he "said" he would do, it is a strange way to give him a "mandate" by saddling him with a House with a majority of his opposing numbers.

Again, as I noted, you are really not all that conversant with the meaning of "mandate."

But, it is "ok." You got that part right at least.

 

[emptystep]

It's not going to be the grand liberal pipe dream that Obama alluded to either. Everyone is going to blame the other person for what anyone doesn't like about this.

That's standard operating procedure for Democrats. 20 years from now they will still be blaming Bush for the disastrous results of their policies.

I did not say Democrats. I said Obama. They overlap but they are by no means the same thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, you don't like his changes... so far. Some opinions will be lost and some will be gained. Like the jobs.

So, you wish to be dishonest as well? So be it.

However you cannot run away from the fact that the Dems and Obama are all screaming jobs lost BECAUSE of sequestration and you know it is not true. Saying some jobs will, some won't is like saying some bread is white and some bread is not. In other words, you've conceded the point and now are arguing for the mere sake of argument.

Enjoy.

It's not about me.

You think something is dishonest and I don't. He's the President and has the mandate.

You're somewhere else.

Obama has a mandate? In what universe?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not about me.

You think something is dishonest and I don't. He's the President and has the mandate.

You're somewhere else.

Mandate?

The voters gave him a mandate by electing him but saddling him with a Congress that is strongly divided?

It is safe to say that you do not know what mandate means.

President Obama has the mandate and he defers to history, not you or me. If he can force Congress to do what he wants, then he's pretty powerful.

WHAT THE FUCK?

History is not paying his salary, we are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

President Obama has the mandate and he defers to history, not you or me. If he can force Congress to do what he wants, then he's pretty powerful.

He has no mandate.

But if he can get the weak-willed Boehner led GOP House to cave in to most of his legislative agenda and wishes, then he does have the authority to lead and he will gain a modicum of "success" at least as he measures that notion. Whether what he gets passed is consistent with the restraints imposed by the Constitution is another matter.

He's President of the United States of America in a second term. You say he has no mandate.

OK

Mandate: 1: an authoritative command; especially : a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one
2: an authorization to act given to a representative <accepted the mandate of the people>
3a: an order or commission granted by the League of Nations to a member nation for the establishment of a responsible government over a former German colony or other conquered territory
b: a mandated territory

If I go out of my way and assume that you think he has a mandate because he represents us, all I can point out is it is not his job to represent anyone, so he cannot possibly have a mandate. The people with a mandate are the representatives, and most of them are Republicans.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He's President of the United States of America in a second term. You say he has no mandate.

OK

You claim that the fact that he got elected (and re-elected) constitutes a "mandate."

You clearly do not understand the import of the word.

I don't claim anything. He's President and he's doing what he said he would try to do.

He was voted in saying he would do those things and he was voted in on a second term.

That's mandate enough for my opinion. Clearly it's not enough for yours. Like I said.

OK

I recall him saying he was going to take a balanced approach and combine spending cuts with tax increases. He got his tax increases, and is now fighting against any cuts in spending. That means, even if I suffer from the delusion that he won the election because of what he said he would do, in this case he is going against the mandate you think he has.

Thus proving you are a lying sack of shit.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Obama is just trying to scare you. That is a liberal tactic!

Blog: 'Devastating' sequester cuts: True or False?

According to Obama, the sequester would represent "a huge blow to middle-class families and our economy as a whole." Obama's White House has also referred to the sequester as "devastating," saying its cuts would "imperil our economy, our national security (and) vital programs that middle class families depend on."

Sounds frightening - but is it true? Of course not. According to The Wall Street Journal "federal domestic discretionary spending soared by 84 percent with some agencies doubling and tripling their budgets" during Barack Obama's first two years in office. In fact the sequester would scale back just one of every six dollars in discretionary spending increases since 2008 - hardly a "huge blow." Also, discretionary spending in 2008 was already tremendously inflated - having increased by more than 60 percent over the previous eight years.

In other words this isn't even really a cut - "devastating" or otherwise - it's a modest growth rate reduction following years of unnecessary, embarrassing and unsustainable excesses.

Read more: Blog: 'Devastating' sequester cuts: True or False?
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

In the 1980s Reagan's scum claimed the sky would fall if military profiteers forced one less military toy on taxpayers than had been budgeted by the corporate shill and his morons. Democrats too gutless to represent America, sold out to military industrial profiteers and that stupid old fuck ended up tripling the national debt.

It is exactly right to say the sequester is no big deal. It is even better to say it's about time the defense industry got dialed back to America's real needs instead of living the fantasies of microdicked chickenhawks like Reagan, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Juneug whose scariest moments in life were when their mothers caught them jacking off.

In terms of other cuts? So what.

It's time to cut spending is the bottom line.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999 [1981-2000]


[FONT=&quot]http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm [2001-2012]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

 

[emptystep]

So, you wish to be dishonest as well? So be it.

However you cannot run away from the fact that the Dems and Obama are all screaming jobs lost BECAUSE of sequestration and you know it is not true. Saying some jobs will, some won't is like saying some bread is white and some bread is not. In other words, you've conceded the point and now are arguing for the mere sake of argument.

Enjoy.

It's not about me.

You think something is dishonest and I don't. He's the President and has the mandate.

You're somewhere else.

Obama has a mandate? In what universe?

The third universe from the left of Orion. This universe of course, which did you think we were talking about. Geesh.

Obama has a mandate. I don't know about the literal definition but when a president runs on a platform and is elected by the margin Obama was elected with that is defined in political terms as a 'mandate'.

I must say though, being president is probably more than Obama even dreamed of achieving but for the rest of us he really needs to achieve just a little more.