Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: But I thought the President flew around the country to tells us how « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17709
Online
#45 : April 10, 2013, 07:42:32 PM

CBW you are truly the Rush Limbaugh of the Left. Yeah, it's of no consequence that the President of the US has no qualms about lying to the American people. Lmao

Has there ever been a president that didn't lie about something? If only you were as concerned about the lie that a certain president sold that landed us in a war in Iraq as you are about who started the freaking sequester. Oh the buffoonery...


As long as I have been alive 2 wrongs have never made a right. Like I said, Limbaugh of the Left.

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6893
Offline
#46 : April 10, 2013, 09:39:53 PM


How is it consequential, Vince? What were the consequences from this lie, and what did the President gain politically from it? How did lying about who's idea the sequester was affect anything significant that's happened in the last few months?

I am of the opinion that the President of the United States lying to the people was always consequential. As for what did he gain? How about trying to turn any bad feelings and blame caused by the sequester from himself onto Republicans.

Mr. Milich

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2497
Offline
#47 : April 10, 2013, 09:45:05 PM

"As long as I have been alive 2 wrongs have never made a right. "

Who knew the solution could be so simple.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Online
#48 : April 10, 2013, 11:31:29 PM

CBW you are truly the Rush Limbaugh of the Left. Yeah, it's of no consequence that the President of the US has no qualms about lying to the American people. Lmao

Has there ever been a president that didn't lie about something? If only you were as concerned about the lie that a certain president sold that landed us in a war in Iraq as you are about who started the freaking sequester. Oh the buffoonery...


As long as I have been alive 2 wrongs have never made a right. Like I said, Limbaugh of the Left.

The point, my dear buffoon, is that there isn't a single politician that doesn't lie, yet you appear to be overly concerned about a lie that had no adverse consequences other than making Obama look like he lied about something, and far less concerned about lies that actually do have far more adverse consequences.

I find it quite humorous that you created an entire thread devoted to a lie that Obama made in a debate with Romney, yet when Romney was called out for lying 27 times in 38 minutes worth of debate commentary in the 1st debate, where was ole' non-partisan Vinny?

You are a hypocritical ass of such epic proportions it isn't even funny anymore. Well, actually, it's still a little funny.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Online
#49 : April 10, 2013, 11:44:52 PM


How is it consequential, Vince? What were the consequences from this lie, and what did the President gain politically from it? How did lying about who's idea the sequester was affect anything significant that's happened in the last few months?

I am of the opinion that the President of the United States lying to the people was always consequential.

While I understand the moral implications spartan, lets be real here. If Obama was the 1st president to ever lie about something, then the moral outrage would be justified. We both know that he isn't, and we both know that Vince, and yourself, have been far more forgiving of some lies than you have of others, dependent upon the source, of course.

What I meant by consequence was an actual adverse consequence. What was the result of this lie? What adverse consequence did his lying about the who's idea the sequester was actually have? Who did it hurt? Who lost their freedom, their job, a loved one, or their life because of it?

As for what did he gain? How about trying to turn any bad feelings and blame caused by the sequester from himself onto Republicans.

They don't deserve any? It seems to me that you and Vinny are trying to suggest that the sequester is Obama's fault because he proposed it. That kinda ignores the whole process of how a bill becomes a law, doesn't it?
: April 10, 2013, 11:47:17 PM CBWx2


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46029
Offline
#50 : April 11, 2013, 07:59:43 PM

http://www.schooltube.com/video/fcde4d15a9276c9a09d3/

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6893
Offline
#51 : April 11, 2013, 08:23:28 PM


How is it consequential, Vince? What were the consequences from this lie, and what did the President gain politically from it? How did lying about who's idea the sequester was affect anything significant that's happened in the last few months?

I am of the opinion that the President of the United States lying to the people was always consequential.

While I understand the moral implications spartan, lets be real here. If Obama was the 1st president to ever lie about something, then the moral outrage would be justified. We both know that he isn't, and we both know that Vince, and yourself, have been far more forgiving of some lies than you have of others, dependent upon the source, of course.

Like what? And please don't say Bush and Iraq because there is a difference between being wrong, and lying. I am pretty sure that if this Administration had found out that Bush straight lied, it would have found it's way onto MSNBC by now. The fact it hasn't speaks volumes to me.

We all know Presidents have to lie; On security issues for example, especially when dealing with rogue or unfriendly nations, but here we are talking about bald face lying solely for political gain. That is different and speaks IMO of the Presidents integrity, or rather lack thereof.


What I meant by consequence was an actual adverse consequence. What was the result of this lie? What adverse consequence did his lying about the who's idea the sequester was actually have? Who did it hurt? Who lost their freedom, their job, a loved one, or their life because of it?

As for what did he gain? How about trying to turn any bad feelings and blame caused by the sequester from himself onto Republicans.


They don't deserve any? It seems to me that you and Vinny are trying to suggest that the sequester is Obama's fault because he proposed it. That kinda ignores the whole process of how a bill becomes a law, doesn't it?

So a President can lie as long as it doesn't work? That kinda defeats the  purpose of the exercise doesn't it?

Now where I do agree with you is that the Republicans have as much responsibility for the sequester as the President and the Democrats, but at least they had the honesty to say, we hate this, but it's better than the alternative on the table so we will suck it up. Let's face it, the President thought the Republicans would cave rather than see cuts to the defense budget, and it came back to bite him. That is no partisan snipe, simply a statement how things went down. Where the Republicans have little or no responsibility is how the sequester is implemented. If you think it is fine to cancel all Whitehouse tours during Easter Break and the immediately have lavish multi million dollar party, I can't argue with that can I? Ok, I don't know how much the party cost, but I bet it wasn't cheap and the Administration certainly, at least on the face of it, are trying to make this as painful as possible, all while trying to push the story that it was all the Republicans fault. What was it you said about the consequences of the lie?

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Online
#52 : April 17, 2013, 12:47:07 AM

Like what? And please don't say Bush and Iraq because there is a difference between being wrong, and lying.

So we are going to stick to the narrative that the Bush Administration, and Bush humself weren't lying about WMD, they were just wrong about it? Okay.

Where the Republicans have little or no responsibility is how the sequester is implemented. If you think it is fine to cancel all Whitehouse tours during Easter Break and the immediately have lavish multi million dollar party, I can't argue with that can I? Ok, I don't know how much the party cost, but I bet it wasn't cheap and the Administration certainly, at least on the face of it, are trying to make this as painful as possible, all while trying to push the story that it was all the Republicans fault. What was it you said about the consequences of the lie?

The president and congress actually voted to eliminate many of the more harsher portions of the sequester so that things didn't have as bad of an affect as they would have if the sequester had been implimented as it was initially voted on, so there's just one inaccurate portrayal of events in this statement. There are more, but it's late and I'm tired.


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#53 : April 17, 2013, 11:14:54 AM


How is it consequential, Vince? What were the consequences from this lie, and what did the President gain politically from it? How did lying about who's idea the sequester was affect anything significant that's happened in the last few months?

I am of the opinion that the President of the United States lying to the people was always consequential.

While I understand the moral implications spartan, lets be real here. If Obama was the 1st president to ever lie about something, then the moral outrage would be justified. We both know that he isn't, and we both know that Vince, and yourself, have been far more forgiving of some lies than you have of others, dependent upon the source, of course.

Like what? And please don't say Bush and Iraq because there is a difference between being wrong, and lying.


How about- "I did not have sex with that women" ??

Or "Read my lips- no new taxes"

Or " I have no knowledge of any covert deal to sell arms to the Contras"

Or "the breakin at the Watergate Hotel had nothing to do with this administration or the President" ?

Or "As President and Commander in Chief, it is my duty to the American people to report that renewed hostile actions against United States ships on the high seas in the Gulf of Tonkin have today required me to order the military forces of the United States to take action in reply.

The initial attack on the destroyer 'Maddox, on August 2, was repeated today by a number of hostile vessels attacking two U.S. destroyers with torpedoes." ?

Or ""We saw no need to inform Israel or any other party to the hostilities of the Liberty's location since the ship was on a peaceful mission and was in international waters. I have seen a report alleging that the Israeli Government has asked us about the presence of the ship prior to the attack, but that report is not true." ?

and of course "I AM NOT A CRIMINAL"


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17709
Online
#54 : April 17, 2013, 12:00:01 PM

While I understand the moral implications spartan, lets be real here. If Obama was the 1st president to ever lie about something, then the moral outrage would be justified.

A child on school grounds strikes another child with a rock.  The teacher says "don't ever strike anyone." The child says, "oh yea, well I saw Billy do it."

Maybe I give CBW too much credit by calling him the Limbaugh of the Left

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Online
#55 : April 17, 2013, 04:11:59 PM

While I understand the moral implications spartan, lets be real here. If Obama was the 1st president to ever lie about something, then the moral outrage would be justified.

A child on school grounds strikes another child with a rock.  The teacher says "don't ever strike anyone." The child says, "oh yea, well I saw Billy do it."

Maybe I give CBW too much credit by calling him the Limbaugh of the Left

Two children strike kids with rocks. One child is a Republican, the other is a Democrat. Vin says to the first child, "Hey little buddy, why'd you throw that rock? Oh,  Billy called you a bad name? Okay, run along little fella." Vin says to the second child, "Scum like you has no place in this school, you commie bastard! When you throw rocks, it hurts us all! Even when those rocks don't hit anyone!"



dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46029
Offline
#56 : April 24, 2013, 09:29:40 PM

Airport Delays Raise Questions About Controller Furloughs
by MARILYN GEEWAX
April 22, 2013 5:28 PM

Passengers check their flight status at Los Angeles International airport on Monday. The FAA said staffing cuts were causing delays in the Eastern U.S.

Damian Dovarganes/AP
Some air travelers faced delays Monday as furloughs of air traffic controllers began taking effect.

The Federal Aviation Administration said that with fewer eyes on the skies, it was forced to delay some flights. Travelers checking the FAA website saw alerts such as: "Due to STAFFING, there is a Traffic Management Program in effect for traffic arriving Charlotte Douglas International Airport, Charlotte, NC (CLT). This is causing some arriving flights to be delayed an average of 22 minutes."

The delays left many travelers fuming, and wondering: What the heck is going on?

Here are answers to read on your smartphone as you sit, tapping your foot, in an airport terminal.

Why did the FAA furlough air traffic controllers?

Last week, FAA Administrator Michael Huerta told a Senate committee that he had no choice, thanks to the automatic spending cuts set into motion by the sequestration process. That's a reference to congressionally mandated, across-the-board spending cuts that began taking hold March 1.

"The sequester is requiring the FAA to make significant cuts in services and investments," Huerta said. To stay within its reduced budget, the FAA must furlough 47,000 workers for up to 11 unpaid days between now and the fiscal year's end on Sept. 30. That includes nearly 15,000 flight controllers and other workers needed to keep flights moving smoothly.

Why do furloughs cause delays?

Each furloughed employee must skip one day of work for every two-week pay period. To avoid overloading the remaining controllers, the FAA is allowing fewer departures and landings, particularly during prime times such as mornings when lots of business travelers want to take off. That led to flight delays Monday in areas with crowded airspace, like the New York area.

When did the furloughs begin, and what has happened so far?

The FAA began enforcing the furloughs Sunday. For most of the country, the weather was good and air traffic was light, so delays weren't too bad.

But on Monday morning, the delays started to cascade at some East Coast airports. The FAA's flight tracking map showed lots of holdups in that crowded stretch of airspace from New York's LaGuardia airport to Baltimore-Washington International airport. But the total number of delays tied directly to the staffing problems wasn't clear yet.

Are these cuts really necessary?

The Obama administration's Department of Transportation says the FAA has no choice. At a press briefing Monday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, "Furloughs cannot be avoided 70 percent of the FAA's operations budget is personnel."

But critics don't see it that way. They think the White House is using high-visibility cuts to draw attention to the downsides of sequestration.

For example, Republican Rep. Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania, who chairs the House Transportation Committee, insists in a statement that "the FAA has the flexibility to reduce costs elsewhere, such as contracts, travel, supplies, and consultants, or to apply furloughs in a manner that better protects the most critical air traffic control facilities."

What are the airlines saying?

Representatives of major airlines and unionized pilots have been condemning the furloughs. At a press conference Friday, Nicholas Calio, who heads the industry trade group named Airlines For America, called the furloughs "unjust, unnecessary and completely irresponsible."

So what happens next?

The airlines' trade group on Friday filed a motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, seeking an emergency stay to end the furloughs. The court denied an immediate injunction, but the airlines are pursuing the underlying lawsuit. The court has not yet set a schedule for oral arguments.

In the meantime, the industry is trying to build political pressure to force the White House to shift the cuts to other areas of the FAA budget. It has launched an online campaign, "DontGroundAmerica.com," to urge people to contact Congress and the White House to complain about the furloughs.

At this point, it's unclear whether anything can be done to stop the furloughs until the next FAA budget takes effect Oct. 1.

Hmmm - Executive Branch swings.... and gets hit with the responsibility of their actions

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

gone

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 9244
Offline
#57 : April 24, 2013, 10:47:21 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324874204578438913145965432.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

"On Monday, as flight delays were hitting travelers at airports around the country due to these allegedly unavoidable cuts, the top story on the Department of Transportation's website announced a $474 million grant program that promises to "make communities more livable and sustainable." "

"Mr. LaHood's website on Monday also announced that "DOT launches Women in Transportation History online exhibit." No doubt all the female passengers waiting for a flight out of LAX will be ecstatic."

----------------------------

It's pretty disgusting that Obama and crew are deliberately making this as painful as possible to the American People in order achieve political leverage.  They are absolutely terrified that people might notice that much of this spending is unnecessary, so they pull from the important and protect the waste, and say "look, see how much it hurts public services when we cut spending!"  Absolutely disgusting.

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46029
Offline
#58 : April 25, 2013, 10:42:49 AM

Ooops - they left tracks - won't be too long before air traffic controller issue will disappear I suspect...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/24/toomey_faa_gets_more_money_after_sequester_than_in_obama_budget.html

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17709
Online
#59 : April 26, 2013, 11:21:24 AM

but what do politics have to do with the FAA ?. .. . .

more:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/02/24/crowley-lahood-post-sequester-faa-budget-500-million-more-2008-when-p
: April 26, 2013, 11:26:02 AM VinBucFan
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: But I thought the President flew around the country to tells us how « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools