The Obama rally!

[Alaska Darin]

I think the concept is that congress has better things to do that spend its time re-doing this bill. Its not horrible, and as far as I know none of the earmarks are outright evil. And the earmarks are like 2% of the total spending in the bill. Sometimes you just have to let things go because its not productive to the country to fight them.

Yeah, it's only 2%. 2% here and 2% there has eventually added up to a deficit of over $10,000,000,000,000.00 with the projected addition of $1,750,000,000,000.00 this year and another $1,100,000,000,000.00 next year. But go ahead and keep telling yourself that Congress has better things to do, ya moron.

[IDBillzFan]

Man, you have become an old bitter, bitter man, my friend, in a matter of months. I would lay good money down that you are yelling at kids to get off your lawn like stuckinsenile.

Hey, is that Bilzrul doing a Dolly Parton song in a karaoke bar, or is your cellphone just ringing.

 

 

Once again we meet where "That's Not What He Implied" Street meets "That's Not What I Inferred" Avenue. You simply can not expect America to continually back this guy when less than two months into this presidency, every criticism receives the overwhelming "Look, go back and listen to him again. It's not REALLY what he meant. I can't help it if that's what you thought you heard."

 

Implied vs. inferred. You can only ride that pony for so long before people catch on, and despite what you and the president think, MOST Americans are not that stupid. Lazy and apathetic, yes. Stupid? Not so much.

 

It's okay, though, because when we can't take it any more, and the entire country is in debt up to its eyeballs and we have nowhere to turn and no one to lead us out of this mess, at least the chorus will be easy to learn. Sing it with me, people!!!!

 

"Iiiiiiiii will alwaaaaaaays love youuuuuuu!"

 

What this president needs is a war. That'll fix everything.

[Kelly the Dog]

Hey, is that Bilzrul doing a Dolly Parton song in a karaoke bar, or is your cellphone just ringing.

 

 

Once again we meet where "That's Not What He Implied" Street meets "That's Not What I Inferred" Avenue. You simply can not expect America to continually back this guy when less than two months into this presidency, every criticism receives the overwhelming "Look, go back and listen to him again. It's not REALLY what he meant. I can't help it if that's what you thought you heard."

 

Implied vs. inferred. You can only ride that pony for so long before people catch on, and despite what you and the president think, MOST Americans are not that stupid. Lazy and apathetic, yes. Stupid? Not so much.

 

It's okay, though, because when we can't take it any more, and the entire country is in debt up to its eyeballs and we have nowhere to turn and no one to lead us out of this mess, at least the chorus will be easy to learn. Sing it with me, people!!!!

 

"Iiiiiiiii will alwaaaaaaays love youuuuuuu!"

 

What this president needs is a war. That'll fix everything.

You're just spreading lies about him. Over and over. Spreading lies about someone you're accusing of spreading lies and breaking promises. You really should stop. It's not your implied or inferred. It's what he said, meant and implied. When he talks about the stimulus bill 100 times and says there is not going to be a single earmark in this bill, it's not implying in any way that he is cutting out all earmarks on all bills for all time. That's just stupid. And using a montage where they just use the cuts of the words "no earmark" does nothing to help you, it just makes you look like the problem you're complaining about.

 

Talk about hyopcrisy.

[Chef Jim]

You're just spreading lies about him. Over and over. Spreading lies about someone you're accusing of spreading lies and breaking promises. You really should stop. It's not your implied or inferred. It's what he said, meant and implied. When he talks about the stimulus bill 100 times and says there is not going to be a single earmark in this bill, it's not implying in any way that he is cutting out all earmarks on all bills for all time. That's just stupid. And using a montage where they just use the cuts of the words "no earmark" does nothing to help you, it just makes you look like the problem you're complaining about.

 

Talk about hyopcrisy.

 

Man oh man Kelly. I really thought you were smarter than that. To follow a politician, any politician as blindly as you are is just suprising and plain sad.

[IDBillzFan]

You're just spreading lies about him. Over and over. Spreading lies about someone you're accusing of spreading lies and breaking promises. You really should stop. It's not your implied or inferred. It's what he said, meant and implied. When he talks about the stimulus bill 100 times and says there is not going to be a single earmark in this bill, it's not implying in any way that he is cutting out all earmarks on all bills for all time. That's just stupid. And using a montage where they just use the cuts of the words "no earmark" does nothing to help you, it just makes you look like the problem you're complaining about.

 

Talk about hyopcrisy.

Holy crap, you're suddenly channeling the Obama marketing machine. And here I figured a Crayola-free guy like yourself would get the point. We both know marketing is the repetitive exposure of your primary points to your target audience. To market Obama, he repeated the mantra -- everywhere he went -- "no earmarks."

 

After a while, people start thinking, "Hey, that Obama stands for no earmarks."

 

But what's the first thing he does? Let the earmarks in. People are starting to say "Hey, didn't he promise no ear marks?"

 

This is when it's time to turn on the PR machine and stop this in its tracks by doing an interview with Chris Matthews:

 

Chris Matthews: Mr. President, people are starting to suggest that you continually used the phrase "no earmarks" during your campaign, and yet Nancy Pelosi is getting millions to preserve marsh rats. Care to explain?

 

Obama: Sure, Chris. You see, I never said "no earmarks." That's just what people heard. What I was really saying was "No ear remarks." My ears are huge, and people have made fun of me for years. So since I'm the first half-black president and remind everyone of Abraham Lincoln, I figured it was okay for me to tell everyone "No ear remarks." Now, look. There is a chance that I may have been speaking too quickly, so it may have come out sounding like "No earmarks," but really, what I was saying all the time was "No ear remarks."

 

Chris: Eloquent and honest as always, sir. Would you mind autographing my thigh?

[Kelly the Dog]

Man oh man Kelly. I really thought you were smarter than that. To follow a politician, any politician as blindly as you are is just suprising and plain sad.

That makes me laugh. I criticize him all the time. In fact, he said four things about earmarks and I think he is wrong about two of them. But when I support what he actually said from people tearing him down with things he didn't say, I'm following a politician blindly. This is getting good, especially from you and LA who never give the other side an inch.

 

Obama's stance on earmarks, which haven't changed, are basically this:

 

1] He wants to REFORM earmarks and cut earmarks IN HALF when he is President. Not all of them, just in half.

 

2] He said HE HIMSELF wouldn't have any earmarks, and in that omnibus bill, from last year, there was ONE that remained there from when he was Senator. If it's the one I think it was, he did a totally weasel move of removing his name from it. I think that was wrong and stupid. He should have just eliminated the one earmark which was 970K I think for a project in Illinois.

 

3] He said over and over THE STIMULUS BILL would not have earmarks. I don't think it has any but I am not 100% sure.

 

4] Right now the controversy is over LAST YEARS OMNIBUS BILL which has 9000 earmarks. He allowed it to pass with them. I think that was a mistake, and even though he is not responsible for the bill, and never said it wouldn't have earmarks, I think he made a mistake by not cutting them ALL OUT. He should have and could have sent a message, even though he never ever promised anything about that bill. Again, I think he was wrong here.

 

But I'm just blindly following him.

[erynthered]

Man oh man Kelly. To follow a politician, any politician as blindly as you are is just suprising and plain sad.

 

 

You're just NOW noticing this?

[Kelly the Dog]

Holy crap, you're suddenly channeling the Obama marketing machine. And here I figured a Crayola-free guy like yourself would get the point. We both know marketing is the repetitive exposure of your primary points to your target audience. To market Obama, he repeated the mantra -- everywhere he went -- "no earmarks."

 

After a while, people start thinking, "Hey, that Obama stands for no earmarks."

 

But what's the first thing he does? Let the earmarks in. People are starting to say "Hey, didn't he promise no ear marks?"

 

This is when it's time to turn on the PR machine and stop this in its tracks by doing an interview with Chris Matthews:

 

Chris Matthews: Mr. President, people are starting to suggest that you continually used the phrase "no earmarks" during your campaign, and yet Nancy Pelosi is getting millions to preserve marsh rats. Care to explain?

 

Obama: Sure, Chris. You see, I never said "no earmarks." That's just what people heard. What I was really saying was "No ear remarks." My ears are huge, and people have made fun of me for years. So since I'm the first half-black president and remind everyone of Abraham Lincoln, I figured it was okay for me to tell everyone "No ear remarks." Now, look. There is a chance that I may have been speaking too quickly, so it may have come out sounding like "No earmarks," but really, what I was saying all the time was "No ear remarks."

 

Chris: Eloquent and honest as always, sir. Would you mind autographing my thigh?

Cool. So you admit you're constantly lying about him. Way to man up.

 

See the post above to Chef.

 

As I said before, it's not my fault you don't or can't listen. You prefer to lie and then make excruciatingly bad jokes. Those have gone way downhill lately by the way.

 

If this is the way you guys are when things are just starting up, I can't wait til the economy starts to recover. 16 years is a long time to be bitter, LA.

[Chef Jim]

That makes me laugh. I criticize him all the time. In fact, he said four things about earmarks and I think he is wrong about two of them. But when I support what he actually said from people tearing him down with things he didn't say, I'm following a politician blindly. This is getting good, especially from you and LA who never give the other side an inch.

 

Obama's stance on earmarks, which haven't changed, are basically this:

 

1] He wants to REFORM earmarks and cut earmarks IN HALF when he is President. Not all of them, just in half.

 

2] He said HE HIMSELF wouldn't have any earmarks, and in that omnibus bill, from last year, there was ONE that remained there from when he was Senator. If it's the one I think it was, he did a totally weasel move of removing his name from it. I think that was wrong and stupid. He should have just eliminated the one earmark which was 970K I think for a project in Illinois.

 

3] He said over and over THE STIMULUS BILL would not have earmarks. I don't think it has any but I am not 100% sure.

 

4] Right now the controversy is over LAST YEARS OMNIBUS BILL which has 9000 earmarks. He allowed it to pass with them. I think that was a mistake, and even though he is not responsible for the bill, and never said it wouldn't have earmarks, I think he made a mistake by not cutting them ALL OUT. He should have and could have sent a message, even though he never ever promised anything about that bill. Again, I think he was wrong here.

 

But I'm just blindly following him.

 

So signing a bill with earmarks and not even challenging ONE of them is reform? You've got a twisted idea what reform is. Yeah...blindly dude.

[Chef Jim]

Cool. So you admit you're constantly lying about him. Way to man up.

 

See the post above to Chef.

 

As I said before, it's not my fault you don't or can't listen. You prefer to lie and then make excruciatingly bad jokes. Those have gone way downhill lately by the way.

 

If this is the way you guys are when things are just starting up, I can't wait til the economy starts to recover. 16 years is a long time to be bitter, LA.

 

So that will make us twice as bitter as you?

[Kelly the Dog]

So signing a bill with earmarks and not even challenging ONE of them is reform? You've got a twisted idea what reform is. Yeah...blindly dude.

You can't even read?

[IDBillzFan]

Cool. So you admit you're constantly lying about him. Way to man up.

 

See the post above to Chef.

 

As I said before, it's not my fault you don't or can't listen. You prefer to lie and then make excruciatingly bad jokes. Those have gone way downhill lately by the way.

 

If this is the way you guys are when things are just starting up, I can't wait til the economy starts to recover. 16 years is a long time to be bitter, LA.

You can only misinterpret "No earmarks" so many ways. We hear "No earmarks" and you hear "Reform earmarks."

 

But I'm lying.

 

Got it.

 

And by the way, the economy is going to recover with or without all this wasteful spending. It always has and it always will. The question is, for how long?

[Chef Jim]

You can't even read?

 

I guess not. You're confusing me.

[IDBillzFan]

I guess not. You're confusing me.

Exactly. What he said isn't what he said even though he said it when he didn't mean that he said it, only that he didn't say what you thought he said unless he meant what he didn't say precisely at the moment that he didn't say it.

 

Keep up.

[Kelly the Dog]

So that will make us twice as bitter as you?

I'm happy as hell with what is going on, and happier with what IMO the future is going to look like. 16 years of the good guys in office at the least. I'll probably be dead (of old age not by gunfire) by the time the next Republican is elected to the White House. I'm all cigars and Remy Martin after a big fat steak dinner right now.

[Kelly the Dog]

I guess not. You're confusing me.

Figures. Plain English is tough.

 

To those on the slow bus:

 

You quoted me about ONE thing that I SAID HE WAS DEAD WRONG ABOUT, and then accused me of blindly following him about that one thing.

 

You're good at this.

[Kelly the Dog]

You can only misinterpret "No earmarks" so many ways. We hear "No earmarks" and you hear "Reform earmarks."

 

But I'm lying.

 

Got it.

 

And by the way, the economy is going to recover with or without all this wasteful spending. It always has and it always will. The question is, for how long?

LA, it's very simple: If you tell your kids we're going to cut down on sweets, you are not cutting out all sweets forever.

And if you tell your kids we're not having any sweets today, you're not cutting out all sweets all days.

 

I guarantee your kids could understand that. Probably even the youngest. Apparently, you can't.

[DC Tom]

Figures. Plain English is tough.

 

To those on the slow bus:

 

You quoted me about ONE thing that I SAID HE WAS DEAD WRONG ABOUT, and then accused me of blindly following him about that one thing.

 

You're good at this.

 

Kind of like how I used to blindly follow Bush. Welcome to my world.

[IDBillzFan]

LA, it's very simple: If you tell your kids we're going to cut down on sweets, you are not cutting out all sweets forever.

And if you tell your kids we're not having any sweets today, you're not cutting out all sweets all days.

 

I guarantee your kids could understand that. Probably even the youngest. Apparently, you can't.

Oh, i got it it. So most of America -- you know, the ones who have spent the better part of the past weeks publically criticizing Obama for breaking his promise of "no ear marks" -- are simply a bunch of people who couldn't understand something that even a child could understand?

 

Noooooow it makes sense, because if I ever tell my child that as long as I'm his parent, there will be "no sweets," that just means we're cutting back on sweets, and it's not forever, just for the day, even though I told him "While I'm your parent."

 

Wow. Really. Wow.

 

Is this guy a child who simply misunderstood?

 

Hey, look. Another writer who misunderstood when the administration said "no earmarks."

 

And God knows MSNBC clearly was behaving like a child in January when they reported that Obama pledged no earmarks.

 

And obviously everyone misinterpreted THIS comment from that article:

 

He told reporters at his transition office that his package will set a "new higher standard of accountability, transparency and oversight. We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert projects without review."

 

Silly us. We completely took "We are going to ban all earmarks" out of context.

 

Thanks for clarifying, Mr. Gibbs. Stellar work as always.

[Kelly the Dog]

Oh, i got it it. So most of America -- you know, the ones who have spent the better part of the past weeks publically criticizing Obama for breaking his promise of "no ear marks" -- are simply a bunch of people who couldn't understand something that even a child could understand?

 

Noooooow it makes sense, because if I ever tell my child that as long as I'm his parent, there will be "no sweets," that just means we're cutting back on sweets, and it's not forever, just for the day, even though I told him "While I'm your parent."

 

Wow. Really. Wow.

 

Is this guy a child who simply misunderstood?

 

Hey, look. Another writer who misunderstood when the administration said "no earmarks."

 

And God knows MSNBC clearly was behaving like a child in January when they reported that Obama pledged no earmarks.

 

And obviously everyone misinterpreted THIS comment from that article:

 

 

 

Silly us. We completely took "We are going to ban all earmarks" out of context.

 

Thanks for clarifying, Mr. Gibbs. Stellar work as always.

Thanks for proving my point. Each quote and link you gave is what I have been saying. The quotes of "WE ARE GOING TO BAN ALL EARMARKS" WAS ABOUT ONE BILL - THE STIMULUS BILL. In which there are no earmarks. You don't even read your own links. No wonder you keep lying. You're as good as Chef.

He told reporters at his transition office that his package will set a "new higher standard of accountability, transparency and oversight. We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert projects without review."

 

Jesus, the headline of the article is he bans earmarks in this bill and there are no earmarks in the bill. You do realize there are two different bills here, don't you? The one with earmarks (last year's omnibus bill) and the one without (this year's stimulus bill?

Granted, I didn't want to start talking about Obama's package but again, if you don't bother to read what you link, why bother?