Chef Jim Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 (edited) OC in Nutsville, USA is. Obama is unlike any previous POTUS. What does that make him? Different. Now they want him the same... Or @ least their way. What gives Stay? Hey, when the strawman fits... Wear it. :-P So there's this guy who cheated on his wife. He said honey, I'll change. So now he's become an raging alcoholic and meth addict. He changed, but is his wife supposed to like him now? And I like that when you're called out on saying the wing nuts are complaining that he's changed your reply is "well one of them is complaining." Edited May 20, 2013 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 So there's this guy who cheated on his wife. He said honey, I'll change. So now he's become an raging alcoholic and meth addict. He changed, but is his wife supposed to like him now? And I like that when you're called out on saying the wing nuts are complaining that he's changed your reply is "well one of them is complaining." EII logic is something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 So there's this guy who cheated on his wife. He said honey, I'll change. So now he's become an raging alcoholic and meth addict. He changed, but is his wife supposed to like him now? And I like that when you're called out on saying the wing nuts are complaining that he's changed your reply is "well one of them is complaining." You understood what he wrote? I couldn't make heads or tails out of most of that crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 (edited) OC in Nutsville, USA is. Obama is unlike any previous POTUS. What does that make him? Different. Now they want him the same... Or @ least their way. What gives Stay? Hey, when the strawman fits... Wear it. :-P Repetition does not help your strawman...sorry People may want him to live up to what he himself describes as his beliefs, but you continue to twist that possibility with your false (they want him to be the same) strawman. . Edited May 20, 2013 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 You understood what he wrote? I couldn't make heads or tails out of most of that crap. Here's what I do. Before I read an EII post I go to the liquor cabinet and down a bottle of Jack. Not one of those small 750ml ones. No, the big 1.5L babies. Then I get in gibberish mode. I need a nap now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 So there's this guy who cheated on his wife. He said honey, I'll change. So now he's become an raging alcoholic and meth addict. He changed, but is his wife supposed to like him now? And I like that when you're called out on saying the wing nuts are complaining that he's changed your reply is "well one of them is complaining." Hey... I am not saying you have to like him... Even myself having to like the raging meth addict. No doubt he's changed the game and now people want the old same old same old... Go figure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 You understood what he wrote? I couldn't make heads or tails out of most of that crap. I will make it easy on you. I mean come on, how much simpler can it get. Go off OC's title alone. Is Obama the anti-president? Yes or no? Did people not vote for change. Sorry you think you got the raging crackhead, meth addicted alky. Crackhead or not, whole campaigns have been run around the promises of having the POTUS act differently from the established way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Hey... I am not saying you have to like him... Even myself having to like the raging meth addict. No doubt he's changed the game and now people want the old same old same old... Go figure... No we don't want the same old same old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 (edited) No we don't want the same old same old. Okay... That you didn't get (the same old same old). :-P Edited May 20, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 No we don't want the same old same old. These guys aren't even getting the change they were promised. I can name only one campaign promise that he has kept and that has turned into a monstrous FUBAR. Gitmo, unemployment numbers, transparency and a squeaky clean administration with no former lobbyists come immediately to mind. So we on the right didn't get what we want with his election and those on the left didn't get what they wanted with his presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 (edited) Okay... That you didn't get (the same old same old). :-P I didn't want the same old same old and I didn't want what I got. Were those my only two options?? Edited May 21, 2013 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Great news: Sequester not impacting federal bonuses For months, we’ve heard practically nothing from the Obama administration except how awful the sequester will be for ordinary Americans. Fortunately, it won’t be so awful for our dear leaders in the federal government — especially in the General Services Administration. The reduction of 2.3% in federal spending, which is actually a reduction in planned increases in federal spending, won’t take a bite out of the bonuses paid out to our betters in Washington: An elite group of federal employees is set to receive cash bonuses despite this year’s automatic budget cuts, according to a report that a Senate subcommittee issued Friday. The report revealed that members of the government’s highly paid Senior Executive Service _ who make up less than 1 percent of the federal workforce _ had received more than $340 million in bonuses from 2008 through 2011. The bonuses came on top of annual salaries that ranged from $119,000 to $179,000. … But by law, agencies still must pay bonuses to Senior Executive Service employees who meet certain performance criteria, the report said. When put into place, the bonuses made some economic sense. For one, it provided a more competitive position for government agencies so that they could compete against the private sector for the best talent. The bonuses were supposed to be tied to performance measurements so that enterprising executives could shake up hidebound bureaucracies and introduce more efficiency and value. How’s that working out? Bear in mind that the biggest recipient of these bonuses is the same agency that blew huge wads of cash on conferences and parties in Las Vegas and you begin to see the issue. Unless these bonuses are awarded on the basis of winning the most bribes and kickbacks, there’s little justification for them. Senator Claire McCaskill wants the bonus program ended during the sequestration, and has proposed a new law to accomplish it: “The idea that some of the highest-paid federal government employees could be getting bonuses while others are being furloughed is outrageous,” McCaskill said in a statement. “This legislation will ensure that doesn’t happen.” Maybe we need to rethink the entire bonus program, or at least the metrics that trigger payment. If this band of geniuses can’t figure out how to reduce spending by 2.3% after watching the budget expand by more than a third since 2007, then “efficiency” isn’t exactly being produced in abundance from this program. http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/20/great-news-sequester-not-impacting-federal-bonuses/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 http://hotair.com/ar...ederal-bonuses/ C'mon B-Man, you know it's hard work to play math games so that it looks like the government is saving money as it increases spending dramatically. The government must pay for the best and brightest to look at programs that are going to end within the next 10 years and count that money is a reduction in future spending. It takes a rare and special breed to look at money that was decided long ago isn't going to be spent and determine that is cost savings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/20/great-news-sequester-not-impacting-federal-bonuses/ I hear you! With all the talks of cuts with this and that... Money is still flowing into the boondoggles. Take the Asian carp boondoggle... Scientists, what not are still out there sampling away with flawed and contaminated experiments as the money melts away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 21, 2013 Author Share Posted May 21, 2013 I will make it easy on you. I mean come on, how much simpler can it get. Go off OC's title alone. Is Obama the anti-president? Yes or no? Did people not vote for change. Sorry you think you got the raging crackhead, meth addicted alky. Crackhead or not, whole campaigns have been run around the promises of having the POTUS act differently from the established way. You didn't really understand my "column" did you? There is a giant difference between taking the job, and doing it a different way, and, re-tasking the job such that it is completely irreconcilable with it's Constitutionally defined requirements. This is being done for the same reason an anti-pope was necessary. Anti-Pope: We don't like the man in the office of Pope, but, we can't be critical of the office, so, we create an new office. What we have here is: Obama doesn't like the office itself, because, performing the actual duties of the office(Specifically working Congress), will expose him as a lightweight, will expose his agenda for what it is, and will expose the people he has around him for what they are. So, a new office has to be created, because operating in the old one would be Obama's undoing. The new office, as we've seen recently, allows Obama to deny everything that is governing, because the new office doesn't require: governing. A new office has been created by Obama, he resides in it, and the old one, the one he was elected to fill, is vacant. Nobody voted for that. Nobody wanted that. Nobody had that in their mind when they got behind Obama in May of 2007. I didn't want the same old same old and I didn't want what I got. Were those my only two options?? Apparently, to the abstract-thought challenged. Why do I always think of "Flowers for Algernon" when I read EII's posts? Not Charlie, no...more like Frank and Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts