Calling out the spade for the tool that he is... The truth isn't an attack if it's correct, while pointing out a lie..

It's still an attack no matter how you need to rationalize it to yourself and it just makes you a hypocrite in the process.

Pointing out a lie isn't an attack. Thanks for the moderating and making up your own rules, Candy.

LMAO.  You can't be this dumb, can you?  Really?

Pointing out a lie isn't an attack. Thanks for the moderating and making up your own rules, Candy.

LMAO.  You can't be this dumb, can you?  Really?

Buwahhhaa, way to drive the point home while standing behind him.... 

Buwahhhaa, way to drive the point home while standing behind him.... 

I have a sneaking suspicioun you haven't understood about 95% of the points made on this thread.

So you still think that a fiscal cliff happens every year there isn't a budget, or what?

Buwahhhaa, way to drive the point home while standing behind him....

I have a sneaking suspicioun you haven't understood about 95% of the points made on this thread.

I'm quite certain you can't make a point without attacking the other person.. And pointing that out isn't an attack, it's perspective...


 

I'm quite certain you can't make a point without attacking the other person..

Well, you'd be wrong.  Which is apparently your thing.

 And pointing that out isn't an attack, it's perspective...

If I've attacked you, it would be agains the CBS terms of service - so report away, there are plenty of posts you claim are attacking. 

Don't get me wrong, I know you won't, because we both know you're wrong, but still.

I'm quite certain you can't make a point without attacking the other person

dude, didn't you just call him a liar?  Has the right lost all sanity since the election?  There is a thread on Off Topic straight out of White Men's paranoia.

Pointing out a lie isn't an attack.

Says the guy hiding behind mental gynmantics to excuse his hypocrisy. Carry on, Sally.

Pointing out a lie isn't an attack.

Says the guy hiding behind mental gynmantics to excuse his hypocrisy

Swing and a miss... No gymnatics needed.
 

Swing and a miss... No gymnatics needed.

Translation - "I'm right.. because I am!"

Swing and a miss... No gymnatics needed.

Translation - "I'm right.. because I am!"

 Don't like it when people point out your lies? Might need to bring in a few more friends to hide behind.. Or just tell the truth and quit belittling..

... quit belittling.

---

Did someone say belittling?

Don't like it when people point out your lies?

You haven't pointed out any, lol. 

But if I'm wrong about something, I like it to be pointed out to me.  I don't hold onto obvious BS like some people...

 Might need to bring in a few more friends to hide behind..

Uh, what?  I haven't hid from anything.

Or just tell the truth and quit belittling

With you?  Why bother.  All you have is belittling (calling accurate statements lies, saying that me not knowing the administrations secrets is avoiding the question, name calling, etc), and playing the victim.

But like I said already, you haven't pointed out anything I've said as being a lie, and you damn sure haven't proven anything.

And you still haven't admitted you got schooled on the fiscal cliff...

Maybe that's what all this is - I showed that didn't understand the fiscal cliff, and you got all butt hurt about it.

Anyhow, like I've said over and over, if yuo want to discuss policy, let's do it. 

If you just want to cry some more... well... this has long since run its course...

And you still haven't admitted you got schooled on the fiscal cliff...

 Yes. Because we all know budget issues are brand new to this admisitration. The point that sailed over your head, was that this budget/taxes isn't new!

Congress and the white House pushed it all down the road, just like the budget, and will more than likely do the same thing this year in a new way.  So, we will have our "fiscal cliff" next year, when they can't agree to anything.... That was the point.

Please continue to insult...

And you still haven't admitted you got schooled on the fiscal cliff...

 Yes. Because we all know budget issues are brand new to this admisitration. The point that sailed over your head, was that this budget/taxes isn't new!

Thank you, that will do as the admission I was looking for, LOL.

Congress and the white House pushed it all down the road, just like the budget, and will more than likely do the same thing this year in a new way.  So, we will have our "fiscal cliff" next year, when they can't agree to anything.... That was the point

Uh-huh...

Please continue to insult...

DD, this is the type of GOPer to which I was referring earlier.

And you still haven't admitted you got schooled on the fiscal cliff...

Yes. Because we all know budget issues are brand new to this admisitration. The point that sailed over your head, was that this budget/taxes isn't new!

Thank you, that will do as the admission I was looking for, LOL.

So you are saying the budget conflict is new. LOL....

The republicans weren't consulted on anything until then..

The republicans weren't consulted, until the reconciliation process?  That's factually incorrect, nor does it make any sense (wouldn't it have to be after the reconciliation, seeing as they damn sure weren't consulted on that?)

"The process in our committee was bipartisan only in that we were given the opportunity to mark up the bill," said Miller. "In large measure, the bipartisanship that existed during the E&C markup was that of luck and circumstance, not intent among Democrats."


Your own link proves the point. The republican were NOT consulted on the bill, only allowed to mark it up when it went up to vote in the committee.





        

So you are saying the budget conflict is new. LOL....

Nope, just pointing out the obvious - that the budget is separate from the fiscal cliff entirely.

Your own link proves the point. The republican were NOT consulted on the bill, only allowed to mark it up when it went up to vote in the committee.

I guess you failed to understand the article as well.  This is what you quoted:

The process in our committee was bipartisan only in that we were given the opportunity to mark up the bill," said Miller. "In large measure, the bipartisanship that existed during the E&C markup was that of luck and circumstance, not intent among Democrats."

That's only in that ONE committee - which happens to have been the Energy and Commerce committee.  This is the rest of the section relevant to Miller's comments:

In the Energy and Commerce Committee, 16 Republican amendments were adopted. With the exception of one that would create a pathway for nonpioneer drug companies to manufacture "follow-on" biologics, said Lisa Miller, a spokeswoman for Republicans on the committee, none of the Republican amendments could be considered major, and none change the core of the legislation.

"The process in our committee was bipartisan only in that we were given the opportunity to mark up the bill," said Miller. "In large measure, the bipartisanship that existed during the E&C markup was that of luck and circumstance, not intent among Democrats.

So what you are claiming was the entire GOP involvement was really only regarding 16 of the 159 amendments.

But come on back now, ya hear?

HURT: In sum, Democrats see voters as isolated parts

• All the nerdy political gurus with their chalkboard tablets on cable news have spoken, and it is official: 
• Identity politics won [President Obama]’s re-election last week.

Analysts on all sides tell us Republicans have drifted away from the quiet majority, which is rapidly losing its white pigmentation. Republicans don’t know how to speak to women, they say. Hispanics don’t relate to this party of supposedly rich, white — and most certainly racist! — men.

• Democrats, meanwhile, have mastered the seedy art of slicing and dicing the electorate into racial, gender and social identities and then herding each group around with phony issues using special “dog whistles” that only those in each group can hear.

When Republicans have tried such dirty tactics in the past, the strategy has been denounced by the media as pure racism. When Democrats do it, it is called winning.

• What rich irony it is that the party of admitted racial electioneering, which for decades used black voters as chattel, would ridicule the Republicans as a dwindling white minority party that is therefore now finished.

Conservatives can take solace in knowing that while the 2012 election certainly was about free contraception, Big Bird, putting people “back in chains,” dancing horses and women in binders, there is one thing it most certainly was not about. It was not a battle of ideas. It was not about some grand mandate voters want politicians in Washington to carry forth.

Conservatives were the only suckers out there who spent the past 12 months making big arguments about big ideas. That was what that whole endless Republican primary was about, and conservatives ultimately decided that electing [Mitt Romney], with his sterling record as a financial turnaround artist, was the most responsible course for the country to take at this perilous time, when so many are suffering and the greatest threat to national security is the unraveling rate of government spending.

Bereft of ideas, the Obama team acknowledges that its strategy was not to debate [Mr. Romney] on these issues but to “define” [Mr. Romney] early, before he had the time and money to present himself as he was. Remember, that was when the campaign was accusing him of lying, committing a felony and killing a woman with cancer.

You bring a book to a debate. These thugs bring brass knuckles and nunchucks, with Saturday night specials shoved inside their boots. [Mr. Romney] came prepared for a boardroom presentation but was met instead by a sex-act freak show of low racists and mustached flesh peddlers who would do anything to win. Except, that is, run a campaign about ideas.

• It is easy in these times to look around and wonder if we have not simply become a nation of infants, ignoring the looming catastrophe because it is just too horrible to consider and instead voting for more free stuff.

Have we really been taken over by people who chose their favorite cartoon character for that permanent tattoo on their neck? Was the election really decided by all those people who get busted running a meth lab wearing a grimy Tweety Bird T-shirt?

Is there actually a growing demand across the country for politicians to take care of us, tell us what to eat and the correct size of portions and pat us down in public so we do not hurt ourselves?

All this silliness is a unique luxury that can exist only under the snug protection of 11 Navy aircraft carrier fleets and the finest military ever known to man. If only we lived up to those ideals and remembered those sacrifices every time we made a political decision or cast a vote.

Have we really been taken over by people who chose their favorite cartoon character for that permanent tattoo on their neck? Was the election really decided by all those people who get busted running a meth lab wearing a grimy Tweety Bird T-shirt?

I doubt those people even registered.

The thread tradition is to pretend that nobody reads the articles.

(Even when quotes are offered somehow)

Example-  

Big Red always complains about the articles and never reads them.  

However, he often quotes them and provides a rebuttal. 

The thread tradition is to pretend that nobody reads the articles....

...kinda like you and your multis who never read anything, especially those in bold font, yet always find a way to answer them...I've directed most of my questions to the clown posse for years, and I can always count on you to answer it....tradition I guess...

Example- 

Big Red always complains about the articles and never reads them. 

However, he often quotes them and provides a rebuttal.

I believe in the old adage about the shortest distance between two points....I know you're a lawyer, but I have no intention to read all you post from the front page of the WSJ.  Most articles you cut and paste here could easily be condensed into a couple (at best) paragraphs.  In fact when I do quote from your longer cut and pastes, it's usually something from the first paragraph or so.  I seldom ever read any of your whole articles.   

So what you are claiming was the entire GOP involvement was really only regarding 16 of the 159 amendments.

But come on back now, ya hear?

The process in our committee was bipartisan only in that we were given the opportunity to mark up the bill," said Miller. "In large measure, the bipartisanship that existed during the E&C markup was that of luck and circumstance, not intent among Democrats."

Again, read it..... the involvement was luck and circumstance, not intented. My point continues to stand...

So you are saying the budget conflict is new. LOL....

Nope, just pointing out the obvious - that the budget is separate from the fiscal cliff entirely.

Quote:
“Fiscal cliff” is the popular shorthand term used to describe the conundrum that the U.S. government will face at the end of 2012, when the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 are scheduled to go into effect. 


Say that again?   
 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co
m/2012/11/14/live-blog-president-ob
amas-news-conference-2/?iref=allsearch

2:26 p.m. ET: A reporter tried to shout a question as Obama was wrapping up. While Obama listened to the reporter ask the question (which was about the fiscal cliff), he said he wouldn't answer it since it was shouted out of line.

Here's an explanation:

For record, I asked POTUS if he is open to short term extension on the SPENDING side of fiscal cliff. Jan 1 deadline. #deathstare.

Thought you said we couldn't have the fiscal cliff next year? I thought you knew what the fiscal cliff was?

Thought you said we couldn't have the fiscal cliff next year?

You thought wrong.  I said in order for it to occur again, it would have to be legislated to do so, and that there would not automatically be another one, should a budget not be passed again.

The only reason we have one coming up, is because of that Budget Control Act, that was passed in during the debt ceiling debate.  It created the supercommittee to create a deficit reduction plan, involving spending cuts.  It also said - which is what happened - if the committee could not agree on such cuts, that mandatory cuts would go into effect - those mandatory cuts are 1/2 of the fiscal cliff, the other half being the expiration of the Bush tax cuts (which have nothing to do with the budget, or the Budget Control Act).

 I thought you knew what the fiscal cliff was?

I thought I'd only have to explain it to you the once.  Alas...

Thought you said we couldn't have the fiscal cliff next year?

You thought wrong.  I said in order for it to occur again, it would have to be legislated to do so, and that there would not automatically be another one, should a budget not be passed again.

My comment


      

  2. Next year's fiscal cliff (since he's done nothing to think that he'll do anything different than the past two years) is not asinine.

you responded...

Incorrect,

My comment was no incorrect, as we now see...


you turn to admit you were wrong...    

    

The only reason we have one coming up, is because of that Budget Control Act, that was passed in during the debt ceiling debate.

Coming from the guy who said this had nothing to do with the budget, why is it called the budget control act then?
 

Coming from the guy who said this had nothing to do with the budget, why is it called the budget control act then?

I think I've explained this about every which way, not sure how this is still confusing for you. 

The Budget Control Act of 2011, that put these mandatory cuts in place, was NOT a budget, nor does a budget have to be passed to avoid those mandatory cuts.  If you think that Act was a budget, just because it has "budget" in the name, all I can say is that you couldn't be more wrong.

The Budget Control Act of 2011, that put these mandatory cuts in place, was NOT a budget, nor does a budget have to be passed to avoid those mandatory cuts.  If you think that Act was a budget, just because it has "budget" in the name, all I can say is that you couldn't be more wrong.

Taxes are a part of the budget. Cuts in spending are part of the budget.


Just quit. The fiscal cliff is used to control the budget of the federal government, therefore it IS part of the BUDGET! I can see you CAN'T admit you are wrong. 




 

Taxes are a part of the budget.

Projected tax revenue is, sure.  However, tax rate changes - which is what we are talking about with the fiscal cliff - are typically not passed with a budget bill.

Let's look back at some more recent tax bills, from guys you are likely familiar:

Reagan, in 1981, didn't pass his tax decrease in a budget, he passed it in the Economic Recovery Act of 1981.
In 1986, he didn't pass the tax changes in a budget, he passed it in the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

The Bush tax cuts, passed in 2001 and 2003, were not in budgets, but passed in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (yes, passed the same way as Obamacare), and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (also passed in the same "shove-down-throat method as Obamacare).

Cuts in spending are part of the budget.

I think you are not making a distinction between an official, passed-legislation, national budget, and just the general concept of an overall budget - a distinction that is required to have the conversation we've been having.  Or at least I've been having, lol.