Who Can Piss the Farthest...?

[Keukasmallies]

Barack and Johnny are standing out behind the White House. Barack says, "You know, I can piss farther than you can." Johnny replies, "Unh uh, I can piss farther than you can."

 

The result of this exchange is that we're all about to get pissed on....

 

http://www.foxnews.c...-crisis-fix-it/

[IDBillzFan]

This should not come as a surprise to anyone. This is what the American people voted for. This is what they want. This is what they deserve. There was ample evidence in the past four years that Barack Obama has all the leadership skills of a pencil sharpener.

 

Again. We voted for this. We deserve this. At the very last minute, the sequester will be averted, a new can will be kicked down the road, and then they can get busy positioning themselves for the mid-terms.

[B-Man]

Sequester Hysterics

 

President Obama told America yesterday morning that if the sequester goes through on March 1,

It will eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research…. Emergency responders like the ones who are here today — their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded. Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced. FBI agents will be furloughed. Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go. Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays at airports across the country. Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings…. So these cuts are not smart. They are not fair. They will hurt our economy. They will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls. This is not an abstraction — people will lose their jobs. The unemployment rate might tick up again.”

 

 

President Obama’s federal government is slated to spend $3.6 trillion this year. That is $3,600,000,000,000. The supposedly draconian sequester will reportedly cut that by $85 billion, which is just 2%. In fact, as Mark Levin pointed out last night, the actual cuts for this year from that level are $44 billion, which is

1%

of the budget.

 

That won’t eviscerate anything

. It won’t stop emergency responders from saving victims of disasters, won’t shut down the border patrol, won’t mean longer delays at airports without security or air traffic control, won’t lay off FBI agents, won’t stop criminal prosecutions, won’t terminate thousands of teachers, won’t leave hundreds of thousands of Americans without health care, won’t “add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls.”

 

All that is paid for with just 2% of federal spending? Even after the fearsome sequester, federal discretionary spending will still be $60 billion more than in 2008. The government’s own Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified $125 billion in government waste that can be cut without hurting anybody. Just as I said above about the effects of such tiny cuts.

 

What all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth means is that Obama and the Democrats think even cutting federal spending by 1% to 2% is the end of the world.

But after the sequester goes through, only a few hundred Americans out of 300 million will even notice any effects at all.

 

 

 

.

Edited February 20, 2013 by B-Man

[John Adams]

It's interesting that the party leadership is ratcheting up the rhetoric so much. To me, that means they are ready to let the sequestration kick in. Talking is over and both sides seem to have accepted that it's time to swallow the poison. Finally.

Edited February 20, 2013 by John Adams

[4merper4mer]

On a side note I wonder which animal can actually piss farther in the literal sense. A republican symbol, the elephant must have a gigoundous bladder and you would think it would have the advantage over a democrat donkey but the donkey can lift its leg higher and get a better angle. Have there been any studies on this? What animal is the libertarian and/or commie?

[3rdnlng]

On a side note I wonder which animal can actually piss farther in the literal sense. A republican symbol, the elephant must have a gigoundous bladder and you would think it would have the advantage over a democrat donkey but the donkey can lift its leg higher and get a better angle. Have there been any studies on this? What animal is the libertarian and/or commie?

 

I don't know about the libertarian, but the commie is Canadian.

[B-Man]

Paul on Sequester Cuts: ‘It’s a Pittance,’ Obama ‘Divorced from Any Reality’

 

 

On CNN last night, Kentucky senator Rand Paul told Wolf Blitzer that the sequestration cuts that President Obama warned of yesterday were not only the president’s idea, but are also not as drastic as he signaled in his speech. “It’s a pittance. It’s a slowdown in the rate of growth [of spending],” said Paul. There are “no real cuts.” He also said he voted against the sequester because he “didn’t think it was enough” since it “doesn’t really begin to cut [actual] spending.”

 

 

 

 

Paul said Obama was “divorced from any reality” in blaming the sequester on Congress: “For goodness sake, it was his proposal. He proposed the sequester.”

Edited February 20, 2013 by B-Man

[Magox]

Yeah I think it's gonna go through as well, I mean I hope it doesn't but it appears that there is no real core of support for this to happen. Sure you have the Neo cons that support anything that has to do with the military and there are some reasonable Democrats that realize that this isn't the best way to approach the cuts. But on the flip side, you will always have those Libs that are eager to cut anything related to the military and now you have a new breed of Conservatives that want to cut anything, even spending that R's typically support.

 

So what will happen? Well, if it goes through, the economy will slow down, how much? We'll see. But also it will make us more vulnerable on the foreign front. That is something that isn't being discussed all that much.

[B-Man]

Barack the Blameless, Part II

 

So Senator Max Baucus now confirms Bob Woodward’s report that the sequester was proposed by the Obama administration (in the summer of 2011). Thereafter, in November 2011, the president warned, “I will veto any effort to get rid of automatic spending cuts.”

 

But yesterday, with the sequester barely a week away, the president excoriated those in Congress who won’t halt its implementation, declaring, “If congress allows this meat-cleaver approach to take place it will jeopardize our military readiness. It will eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research. It won’t consider whether we’re cutting some bloated program that’s outlived its usefulness or a vital service that Americans depend on every day. These cuts are not smart. They’re not fair. They’ll add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls. . . . These cuts are a bad idea, they’re not good for the economy, they’re not how we should run our government. There’s a smarter way to do this.”

That’s quite a parade of horribles caused by something that was proposed by his White House and that he felt so strongly about that he threatened to veto any attempt to undo it.

 

Good thing the tenacious press corps isn’t preoccupied with something as trivial as being prevented from getting pictures of the president with Tiger Woods, otherwise they might call the president on his historical jiu jitsu.

 

Still not finished, the president added with a straight face, “It seems like every three months around here there’s some manufactured crisis.”

 

For his next magical trick: “President Obama Lambasts Republicans for Multiple Catastrophes Resulting from Their Failure to Repeal Obamacare.”

 

 

 

 

.

[Doc]

What a douche.

[Magox]

The president is applying the strategy of attempting to press the R's through the public court of opinion by doing these campaign style events. If I were him, that would be the strategy I would implement as well, considering he has no ability to negotiate with the opposing party. So if the R's were smart, or for that matter the conservative Super Pacs and groups, they should do tv and radio ad's hammering the president for the sequester. As Bob Woodward states, it was Obama's idea, and the fact that he is trying to lay blame for the sequester on the R's is incredibly hypocritical. This should be easy to pin the president on. The president doesn't have that much leverage on this issue, never mind the fact that it indeed was HIS idea, but the economy is certain to dip and he is the president which means he will shoulder most of the blame.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Magox

[John Adams]

The president is applying the strategy of attempting to press the R's through the public court of opinion by doing these campaign style events. If I were him, that would be the strategy I would implement as well, considering he has no ability to negotiate with the opposing party. So if the R's were smart, or for that matter the conservative Super Pacs and groups, they should do tv and radio ad's hammering the president for the sequester. As Bob Woodward states, it was Obama's idea, and the fact that he is trying to lay blame for the sequester on the R's is incredibly hypocritical. This should be easy to pin the president on. The president doesn't have that much leverage on this issue, never mind the fact that it indeed was HIS idea, but the economy is certain to dip and he is the president which means he will shoulder most of the blame.

 

Blaming the other side for the sequester is idiotic. They both agreed to it. They both couldn't get deals done to avoid it. Now it's here. Maybe they should both STFU and choke it down. Apologize to the American public. Etc.

 

The only bad thing about the Woodard book is that it ended before all these chapters played out.

Edited February 20, 2013 by John Adams

[....lybob]

Paul on Sequester Cuts: ‘It’s a Pittance,’ Obama ‘Divorced from Any Reality’

 

 

On CNN last night, Kentucky senator Rand Paul told Wolf Blitzer that the sequestration cuts that President Obama warned of yesterday were not only the president’s idea, but are also not as drastic as he signaled in his speech. “It’s a pittance. It’s a slowdown in the rate of growth [of spending],” said Paul. There are “no real cuts.” He also said he voted against the sequester because he “didn’t think it was enough” since it “doesn’t really begin to cut [actual] spending.”

 

 

 

 

Paul said Obama was “divorced from any reality” in blaming the sequester on Congress: “For goodness sake, it was his proposal. He proposed the sequester.”

which is it - the sequester cuts are so drastic they will destroy the economy or as Paul says the the sequester cuts are nothing and we need real cuts- to really destroy the economy.

[Magox]

Blaming the other side for the sequester is idiotic. They both agreed to it. They both couldn't get deals done to avoid it. Now it's here. Maybe they should both STFU and choke it down. Apologize to the American public. Etc.

 

The only bad thing about the Woodard book is that it ended before all these chapters played out.

 

Unfortunately, when you don't have a dance partner, the options are limited, and he's decided to not take that approach. So you can either take it up the ass or you hammer him back. That's what it has come down to.

[IDBillzFan]

Unfortunately, when you don't have a dance partner, the options are limited, and he's decided to not take that approach. So you can either take it up the ass or you hammer him back. That's what it has come down to.

 

Agreed. How freaking moronic is the electorate that it watches Obama in one minute creating a horrible plan and the very next minute blaming everyone for creating his terrible plan, and it's followed by the electorate blaming everyone except the leaderless troll who is in charge of manufacturing one crisis after another.

 

It's time to hit Obama from every angle because you're losing anyway. Go down swinging and watch how many people start swinging with you. Mid terms are right around the corner and Obama sees it as his last best chance to transform the US. If the GOP doesn't fight back, Obama's last two years will make his first six look like a giant bipartisan party.

[John Adams]

Unfortunately, when you don't have a dance partner, the options are limited, and he's decided to not take that approach. So you can either take it up the ass or you hammer him back. That's what it has come down to.

 

It's not fair to pin this all on Obama. Tons of Republicans refused to budge on defense cuts. Both sides refused to dance. I'll say this about Boehner: He was willing to fight his own party at least. Obama did in 2010 but then caved.

[IDBillzFan]

It's not fair to pin this all on Obama. Tons of Republicans refused to budge on defense cuts. Both sides refused to dance. I'll say this about Boehner: He was willing to fight his own party at least. Obama did in 2010 but then caved.

 

But it IS fair to point out that the same sequester Obama says will eviscerate jobs, free felons and leave random houses burning WAS his idea. You can't just give him a pass for causing a problem and then pretending to be the adult in the room and let him get away with it. Everyone knows both sides are dysfunctional, but as I've said often, leaders lead...and Obama is no leader or we wouldn't be in this spot in the first place.

[Magox]

It's not fair to pin this all on Obama. Tons of Republicans refused to budge on defense cuts. Both sides refused to dance. I'll say this about Boehner: He was willing to fight his own party at least. Obama did in 2010 but then caved.

 

Obama's shame strategy:

 

Obama will hold events at the White House with constituencies facing the brunt of the cuts, and travel to places where the deepest cuts loom. His aides hinted Tuesday at releasing data in the next few days that break down the damage state by state.

“That’s the choice,” Obama said Tuesday while surrounded by first responders, a constituency that neither party wants to be seen as hurting. “Are you willing to see a bunch of first responders lose their job because you want to protect some special interest tax loophole? Are you willing to have teachers laid off, or kids not have access to Head Start, or deeper cuts in student loan programs just because you want to protect a special tax interest loophole that the vast majority of Americans don’t benefit from? That’s the choice. That’s the question.”

 

 

Demagoguery at it's finest.

 

Sorry, but when it comes down to this, you aren't left with too many options, as I said, you either take it up the ass or fight back.

[B-Man]

 

 

Charles Krauthammer said on tonight’s edition of Special Report that the sequester is causing far more alarm that it merits. “This is the most ridiculously hyped armageddon since the Mayan calendar,” he argued. “This, as you say, can be solved in a day, in an hour, by allowing a transfer of funds.”

 

Krauthammer went on to say that sequestration remains the subject of controversy because the president “is looking for a fight, and not a solution.”

Edited February 21, 2013 by B-Man

[John Adams]

 

 

But it IS fair to point out that the same sequester Obama says will eviscerate jobs, free felons and leave random houses burning WAS his idea. You can't just give him a pass for causing a problem and then pretending to be the adult in the room and let him get away with it. Everyone knows both sides are dysfunctional, but as I've said often, leaders lead...and Obama is no leader or we wouldn't be in this spot in the first place.

 

So it was his idea. So the Reps agreed to it. Frankly it was a really freaking good idea. If they hadn't set up sequestration, there'd be no cuts at all!

 

If he was smart, he'd pull a judo move and congratulate himself.