PDA

View Full Version : Dear leader takes his ball and goes home!



LWW
07-14-2011, 04:33 AM
How childish can this guy get?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of a stormy debt-limit meeting with congressional leaders Wednesday, a dramatic setback to the already shaky negotiations.

“He shoved back and said ‘I’ll see you tomorrow’ and walked out,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters in the Capitol after the meeting.

On a day when the Moody’s rating agency warned that American debt could be downgraded, the White House talks blew up amid a new round of sniping between Obama and Cantor, who are fast becoming bitter enemies.

When Cantor said the two sides were too far apart to get a deal that could pass the House by the Treasury Department’s Aug. 2 deadline — and that he would consider moving a short-term debt-limit increase alongside smaller spending cuts — Obama began to lecture him.

“Eric, don’t call my bluff,” the president said, warning Cantor that he would take his case “to the American people.” He told Cantor that no other president — not Ronald Reagan, the president said — would sit through such negotiations.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58937.html#ixzz1S4gFskCy </div></div>

eg8r
07-14-2011, 09:32 AM
Again, both sides are unwilling to budge and everyone is blaming the other side.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
07-14-2011, 10:33 AM
If you take Cantor's word for it, Obama even 'shoved' him ('back'?), meaning one or the other or both laid hands on one another and could be charged with assault and battery. Literally, Cantor appears to be admitting he first shoved Obama, as Obama shoved BACK (my emphasis).

I think most of us would agree nobody shoved anybody, literally, and that this is a figurative wording that is not meant literally.

Similarly as well, others in the meeting have said Cantor's description was not exactly factual. Instead of abruptly leaving the negotiations, they appeared to be over for the day, as this whole thing occurred as Obama was summarizing and wrapping up the day's negotiations at the time. And even according to Cantor's weasel depiction, O said he'd see them tomorrow.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Democratic sources dispute Cantor’s version of Obama’s walk out, but all sides agree that the two had a blow up. The sources described Obama as “impassioned” but said he didn’t exactly storm out of the room.

“Cantor’s account of tonight’s meeting is completely overblown. For someone who knows how to walk out of a meeting, you’d think he’d know it when he saw it,” a Democratic aide said. “Cantor rudely interrupted the president three times to advocate for short-term debt ceiling increases while the president was wrapping the meeting. This is just more juvenile behavior from him and Boehner needs to rein him in, and let the grown-ups get to work.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58937.html#ixzz1S67M3fGF
</div></div>

As most may recall, it was Cantor who pulled a walkout with no intent to return on the Biden meetings. Apparently, he is such a hot head juvenile that even Boehner cannot control him, and now we find him mischaracterizing Obama's actions to have been similar to his own prior action, even as he himself admits Obama will be back at the negotiating table tomorrow, as scheduled.

LWW
07-14-2011, 11:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I MUST DEFEND THE REGIME ... I MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ... <span style='font-size: 11pt'> I MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...</span>

</div></div>

Soflasnapper
07-14-2011, 11:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I MUST DEFEND THE REGIME ... I MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ... <span style='font-size: 11pt'> I MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...</span>

</div></div> </div></div>

No, regretfully, given your recidivist assaults, I must defend the truth against your multiple colorful, but false, statements of alleged fact that are far from accurate.

Whatever blow up occurred as of the ending of the meeting, it apparently WAS ENDING, so nobody walked out of anything except a concluded meeting, and certainly, not even Cantor claimed Obama exited negotiating even temporarily, as he will be back the very next day to do so more.

You don't care if you mischaracterize what happened, the better to portray Obama as a child as part of your transparent Alinsky methodology. Most adults realize that the word of a party intimately involved is not wholly trustworthy, as people tend to shade what happened in a way most favorable to themselves. That party, Cantor, you take as the gospel for what happened?

LWW
07-14-2011, 11:31 AM
And you prove me wrong by slavishly defending dear leader and the regime.

Precious ... simply precious.

Soflasnapper
07-14-2011, 11:36 AM
So one might claim.

Or, by CITING YOUR SOURCE, and including 'the rest of the story' you omitted to mention.

People can see what's happened and make up their own minds.

LWW
07-14-2011, 03:04 PM
That's why I provided a link.

I already knew that the cabal would let the regime decide for them.

As for me ... when given the choice between believing Cantor, or a thugocrat who appoints gun smugglers and runs interference for the New Black Panther Party and ACORN while shredding US bankruptcy protection laws to reward union goons and political donors, well I hope you get my point.

To me Obama has zero credibility because he has proven himself to be a liar and a political Nino Brown.

To you he is dear leader.

We shall have to agree to disagree on that basis.

This is where you swear you aren't an Obamatron in spite of the fact that you slavishly defend him no matter what the act, other than to occasionally lament that he isn't quite moonbat crazy enough.

Soflasnapper
07-14-2011, 04:50 PM
Cantor stands to make a chunk of change, betting against the US and the Treasury.

He should recuse himself from these deliberations, or dispose of this conflict of personal wealth interest.

Do you always take the word of persons who have a personal financial stake in the outcome without checking the facts? I remember you did with the executives lying in their USA Today op/ed about Avastin. Wholly credulous of their lying claims, where their entire conflict of interest went unmentioned.

LWW
07-14-2011, 05:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cantor stands to make a chunk of change, betting against the US and the Treasury. </div></div>

Such as?

LWW
07-14-2011, 05:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I remember you did with the executives lying in their USA Today op/ed about Avastin. Wholly credulous of their lying claims, where their entire conflict of interest went unmentioned.

</div></div>

That is a lie.

But, you already knew that.

Stretch
07-14-2011, 05:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I MUST DEFEND THE REGIME ... I MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ... <span style='font-size: 11pt'> I MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...</span>

</div></div> </div></div>

No, regretfully, given your recidivist assaults, I must defend the truth against your multiple colorful, but false, statements of alleged fact that are far from accurate.

Whatever blow up occurred as of the ending of the meeting, it apparently WAS ENDING, so nobody walked out of anything except a concluded meeting, and certainly, not even Cantor claimed Obama exited negotiating even temporarily, as he will be back the very next day to do so more.

You don't care if you mischaracterize what happened, the better to portray Obama as a child as part of your transparent Alinsky methodology. Most adults realize that the word of a party intimately involved is not wholly trustworthy, as people tend to shade what happened in a way most favorable to themselves. That party, Cantor, you take as the gospel for what happened?

</div></div>

LWW's motto is "never let the facts get in the way of a good smear". You know it, and we know it. That's why he barely raises an eye brow any more. After your credibility is gone, feigned outrage is just bad comedy. St.

Qtec
07-15-2011, 05:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LWW's motto is "never let the facts get in the way of a good smear". You know it, and we know it. </div></div>

You nailed it Stretch. LWW is a RABID anti-Obamaist.

Q...and it is obvious to all EXCEPT the Believer.

Gayle in MD
07-15-2011, 01:31 PM
18,295 posts, in well under four years, and every single one full of lies, attacks, arrogance, and slander.

Why in the world would anyone have ANY respect for this POS!

He launches his threads of filth, then he sees to it that he keeps them on the top, just to make sure that his slanderous attacks remain.

The man is ill! No wonder he's been banned from so many sites.

Just read the titles by LWW and Sev, on this page. Not a single one has any truth in it.

What a waste! His lies have been shot down so manny times yet his delusional personality, continues to skip right by reality, to suit his twisted POV!

Out Of Touch!

The President had ended the meeting, as is always the case, and Cantor continued to harrass with questions and statements which had already been addressed.

Then he went out to the media, and lied his ass off to discredit President Obama.

Today, as usual, our president proved that he is above taking the juvenile bait of lying political self-serving hacks like Eric Cantor, one of the biggest liars and idiots to ever enter the rhelm of public service.

The fact is the Repiglicans have painted themselves in a corner, and now, they are trying to distract the public from their failure to legislate, and do their jobs, with the usual Repiglican, grade school mentality, as they pander to the radical RW's appetite for salacious gossip and gamesmanship.

But, the nutty 25%, (MY LABLE, BTW, before the lame brain around here decided to steal it for himself) has only fractured the Repiglicans beyond repair, just as I and you, also, I believe, predicted!

The polls show that Americans are not in line with the Repiglican
policies, nor with their irresponsible behavior.

G.
G.

Soflasnapper
07-15-2011, 01:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I remember you did with the executives lying in their USA Today op/ed about Avastin. Wholly credulous of their lying claims, where their entire conflict of interest went unmentioned.

</div></div>

That is a lie.

But, you already knew that. </div></div>

That's a harsh claim, and I don't think it's a lie at all.

I'd say you posted that as the truth, without regard to the conflict, not mentioning the conflict of the authors in any way yourself.

Now, as to the disclosure IN the piece, it WAS mentioned that they were executives of a certain pharmaceutical company. However, it was NOT mentioned that the company name that was provided was the same company who had put that drug forward under patent, and whose company was therefore directly at risk for future profits if the FDA decision went forward.

Given this, what part of what I said do you term a 'lie'?

Is it that YOU KNEW they were execs at the company that MADE AVASTIN, that you weren't credulous at all, knew it all along, and then, put forth your post recommending the position they took, while deliberately deciding not to flag their conflict in your post (the better to make their claims seem credible)?

Soflasnapper
07-17-2011, 12:35 PM
Bump, for LWW to address the lie allegation denial made in the post above this.

LWW
07-17-2011, 01:24 PM
They disclosed who they were ... and your willingness to discount the people knowledgeable of the science behind it, and I'm amazed at how the left loves junk science yet denies actual science routinely, while you lick the spoon clean of the regime's story without the slightest hint that money might be their motivation even though it is blatantly clear that money is their motivation.

And again ... so long as the regime says that a death panel isn't actually a death panel, it's just a panel which decides who lives and who dies, you will slavishly agree with the propaganda.

IOW ... nothing new at all to be seen here.

Soflasnapper
07-19-2011, 05:31 PM
The FDA routinely allows big money considerations to take the place of science when they approve questionable drugs too early, only to be forced to take them back off of approval after they have severely harmed the populace. So the mechanism of the FDA is the reverse of what you claim.

As to junk science, science isn't one study, but the follow-on studies that seek to replicate the results. The follow-on studies did not replicate the results, and instead, found no significant result. And there is no indication they are bad studies, except bad for the company in question to keep this provisionally approved drug still approved upon review.

This would appear to be the rare case of the FDA getting it right, and even national cancer organizations agree with the decision.

You're black-is-white position that no, the COMPANY standing to make billions is NOT pushing a bad drug with no good effects just for money, it's the BUREAUCRACY (who actually has no money at stake, and is forbidden to use it as a criterion) who's lying for money, is so unbelievable I don't think you can honestly believe it, even yourself.

But I'm probably wrong about that.

ugotda7
07-19-2011, 06:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">18,295 posts, in well under four years, and every single one full of lies, attacks, arrogance, and slander.

Why in the world would anyone have ANY respect for this POS!

He launches his threads of filth, then he sees to it that he keeps them on the top, just to make sure that his slanderous attacks remain.

The man is ill! No wonder he's been banned from so many sites.

Just read the titles by LWW and Sev, on this page. Not a single one has any truth in it.

What a waste! His lies have been shot down so manny times yet his delusional personality, continues to skip right by reality, to suit his twisted POV!

Out Of Touch!

The President had ended the meeting, as is always the case, and Cantor continued to harrass with questions and statements which had already been addressed.

Then he went out to the media, and lied his ass off to discredit President Obama.

Today, as usual, our president proved that he is above taking the juvenile bait of lying political self-serving hacks like Eric Cantor, one of the biggest liars and idiots to ever enter the rhelm of public service.

The fact is the Repiglicans have painted themselves in a corner, and now, they are trying to distract the public from their failure to legislate, and do their jobs, with the usual Repiglican, grade school mentality, as they pander to the radical RW's appetite for salacious gossip and gamesmanship.

But, the nutty 25%, (MY LABLE, BTW, before the lame brain around here decided to steal it for himself) has only fractured the Repiglicans beyond repair, just as I and you, also, I believe, predicted!

The polls show that Americans are not in line with the Repiglican
policies, nor with their irresponsible behavior.

G.
G. </div></div>

Since name calling is your thing - I'm curious.....have you always been such a nasty bitch or did you turn into one as you became old, bitter and irrelevant?

LWW
07-20-2011, 02:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cantor stands to make a chunk of change, betting against the US and the Treasury. </div></div>

Such as? </div></div>

So after 6 days without any back up ... I guess it's safe to assume that you also made that one up?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I regret the error, and as always appreciate the correction, although of course, it was not intended to be a factual statement (TM).</div></div>

Soflasnapper
07-20-2011, 12:13 PM
No, that's been widely reported and is common knowledge.

Why did you refuse to look it up yourself?

This (http://www.google.com/search?q=rep.+cantor+bets+against+US&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) will get you started.

About 1,430,000 results (0.08 seconds)

LWW
07-20-2011, 04:03 PM
All that proves is that he's smart.