Does this sound like anyone we know?

Anyone following the threads on the budget here feel deja vu all over again when they read this? Or this?

And I’m not just picking on one anonymous senator, either. Last week, Ezra Klein reported that a high-ranking House Republican was completely unaware that Obama’s Grand Bargain proposal includes a reduction in Social Security spending via Chained CPI. Then, a few days later, a top GOP consultant made the same mistake, in hilarious fashion.

So let’s back up. Murphy’s initial view was that to unlock GOP votes for a budget deal, Obama just needed to endorse chained CPI and more means-testing in Medicare. Then it was pointed out that Obama has endorsed means-testing in Medicare, so Murphy wondered why he didn’t endorse chained CPI as part of a deal. Then it was pointed out that Obama did endorse chained CPI, at which point Murphy called chained CPI “a gimmick,” and said Obama had to endorse raising the Medicare age, drop his demands for more revenue as part of a deal and earn back the GOP’s trust.

Republican, just another word for troll….

  1. #1 by brewski on March 7, 2013 - 2:52 pm

    Obama’s just now starting to call rank-and-file Republicans? “These stories raise the question of why Obama hasn’t been making these efforts all along. This is the fifth year of his presidency. How can it be that the White House doesn’t have stronger relationships with key, non-leadership Republicans? Why is it so rare to hear he’s having key Republicans over for dinner? Why is it news that he’s making calls to GOP senators?”
    Ezra Klein

  2. #2 by brewski on March 7, 2013 - 3:05 pm

    Total discretionary spending:
    2008: $1.205 trillion
    2013: $1.264 trillion

    Increase: $59 billion

    Spending “cuts” to discretionary programs claimed by whitehouse.gov

    “Spending cuts to discretionary programs enacted over the past two years,
    (not counting war savings) $1.4 trillion

    Democrat, just another word for innumerate…

  3. #3 by Shane on March 7, 2013 - 3:21 pm

    And point proven by the instant troll response with data he has already been refuted on. Perfect….

  4. #4 by brewski on March 7, 2013 - 3:32 pm

    “refuted on”? Could you get any more illiterate?

    Me thinkum Shane gottum fake degreeum from online skool.

    Data already refuted? You refuted the CBO? Perfect….

  5. #5 by Richard Warnick on March 7, 2013 - 8:14 pm

    I think we just found out brewski’s secret identity. He is Bill O’Reilly from Faux News.

    COLMES: I disagree with what he is being said here. $2.50 in tax cuts for every dollar in tax increases.
    O’REILLY: That’s not specific.
    COLMES: Yes, he has. He has offered cuts in Medicare. He has offered cuts to entitlements.
    O’REILLY: That’s not specific. He has to say here are the programs that are going to go down. Here is how we are going to reform Medicare and Social Security. And the man refuses to do it.
    COLMES: That’s not true.
    O’REILLY: Hold it, hold it, because now I’m getting teed off at you. Give me one damn program he said he would cut? One?
    COLMES: He has cut entitlements.
    O’REILLY: Not entitlements. One program.
    COLMES: Why do you want to yell at me for?
    O’REILLY: Because you are lying! You are lying!
    COLMES: Don’t call me a liar. Don’t you sit there and call me a liar.
    O’REILLY: You are lying — here is the proof.
    COLMES: You don’t like the president. You don’t like what he is doing. Don’t sit there and call me a liar.
    O’REILLY: I am.
    COLMES: I’m not lying. We can have a disagreement without you calling me a liar. That’s not necessary.
    O’REILLY: You are lying here.
    COLMES: We are not lying.
    O’REILLY: Where is the proof?
    COLMES: There is difference between having a disagreement and calling me a liar —
    O’REILLY: This is why I’m calling you a liar: Give me one program he would cut.
    COLMES: He would cut Medicare, and Medicaid offered cuts to those programs.
    O’REILLY: That’s not a specific program.
    COLMES: You asked me a program. Those are programs.

  6. #6 by Larry Bergan on March 7, 2013 - 9:01 pm

    Oh my gosh. Bill O’ Reilly has been on this blog?

    I feel like I have to shower, right now.

  7. #7 by brewski on March 7, 2013 - 10:15 pm

    There have been no cuts in entitlements, ever.

  8. #8 by Richard Warnick on March 7, 2013 - 10:56 pm

    Funny, in the last two elections Republicans loudly complained to their old, white base that President Obama has cut Medicare. Were they lying?

  9. #9 by brewski on March 8, 2013 - 8:39 am

    So you are an ageist and a racist.

  10. #10 by cav on March 8, 2013 - 11:01 am

    brewski stomps feet and spits ad hominem. Leftists snicker while pretending to quake in the face of this awesome display of ‘fact-filled knowing’.

  11. #11 by brewski on March 8, 2013 - 2:03 pm

    Somehow I think if I had written the following post:

    “Funny, in the last two elections Democrats loudly complained to their lesbian, black base that President Bush has cut abortion funding. Were they lying?”

    I would have been jump on by all the lefties, for structurally the same comment.

  12. #12 by Larry Bergan on March 9, 2013 - 12:54 am

    There are ageists?

    Damn! I’m in trouble!

    Are they going to kill me for liking the Moody Blues?

    I like Glenn Miller!

    The Jury’s out on Mitch Miller.

  13. #13 by brewski on March 9, 2013 - 7:50 am

    Yes, his name is Richard.

  14. #14 by Larry Bergan on March 9, 2013 - 10:14 am

    Richard’s going to kill me for liking Glenn Miller?

    Bring it on Richard!!

  15. #15 by Larry Bergan on March 9, 2013 - 3:26 pm

    I’m ready! I’m in the mood!

  16. #16 by cav on March 9, 2013 - 9:26 pm

    That’s sooo last century!

  17. #17 by brewski on March 9, 2013 - 11:39 pm

    His words. He admits he hates old people. He is just plain full of hate and bitterness.

  18. #18 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2013 - 9:07 am

    Did the Republicans lie in the last two elections when they said President Obama cut Medicare?

  19. #19 by brewski on March 11, 2013 - 9:31 am

    The Democrats LIED when they said they will realize “savings” from Medicare by cutting reimbursement rates to health care providers which have already been reinstated in other bills or will merely result in cost shifting to the rest of us, so no “savings” of any kind will be realized.

  20. #20 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2013 - 10:03 am

    All the more reason to go to a single-payer Medicare for All system. Actually, I think we agree on that, if I remember correctly.

  21. #21 by brewski on March 11, 2013 - 10:18 am

    Medicare for all and single payer to me don’t sound like the same thing, assuming you understand Medicare in the first place.

  22. #22 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2013 - 2:27 pm

    Medicare is a single-payer health insurance system.

  23. #23 by brewski on March 11, 2013 - 2:41 pm

    No it isn’t.

  24. #24 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2013 - 3:27 pm

  25. #25 by brewski on March 11, 2013 - 6:18 pm

    That link tells me what something which has not passed would be. Not what Medicare is today.

    Do you know what is is? Or do you suffer from “Clinton I don’t speak English Syndrome”?

  26. #26 by cav on March 11, 2013 - 7:14 pm

    HOUSTON—High-level sources at the accounting firm McCall and Associates told reporters Monday morning that the company does not currently have enough manpower to perform a much-needed round of layoffs. “Downsizing is definitely on the agenda, but right now we just don’t have the staff necessary to take care of it,” said CEO David Carmichael, who explained that both the supervisors responsible for deciding which employees to terminate and the personnel tasked with conducting exit interviews had already been let go. “Trisha in HR used to take care of a lot of this stuff, but she was fired in the last round of cuts. My only hope now is that maybe we can hire a few temporary workers to take care of laying off some of these full-timers.” Carmichael then reportedly raised his eyes to survey his company’s completely empty offices, let out a long, deep sigh, and put his head down on his desk.

  27. #27 by Larry Bergan on March 11, 2013 - 8:11 pm

    Clinton couldn’t speak English? When did that happen?

    You must be getting your presidents all mixed up brewski. There are extensive archives documenting Bush Jr. spilling alcohol on the English language before lighting it on fire, but you knew that, unless you slept through the 2000’s.

  28. #28 by brewski on March 11, 2013 - 8:18 pm

    Clinton does not speak English. He is totally unfamiliar with the use of the words “is” “alone” and “sex”.

  29. #29 by Larry Bergan on March 11, 2013 - 10:27 pm

    You mean “is” being used in a sentence like “is our children learning”?

    Clinton didn’t lie us into a war, he lied us in to a phony sex scandal presided over by Newt Gingrich. I guess you and the rest of our propagandized, silly nation missed the irony there.

    Whatever republicans like to call themselves these days…

    republicans
    libertarians
    independents
    conservatives
    tea baggers
    free market Jesus’s
    you-name-it

    …is up to them, but trying to get something through their thick sculls is like trying to penetrate a diamond with a spoon.

    It’s no use and nothing will ever come of it, but we’re not stupid and realize it’s all by design to drive us insane. Your fellow countrymen deserve better, but that’s the way it goes I guess.

    Thanks.

  30. #30 by brewski on March 12, 2013 - 4:49 am

    “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not–that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement….Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”
    The distinction between “is” and “was” was seized on by the commentariat when Clinton told Jim Lehrer of PBS right after the Lewinsky story broke, “There is no improper relationship.” Chatterbox confesses that at the time he thought all these beltway domes were hyperanalyzing, and in need of a little fresh air. But it turns out they were right: Bill Clinton really is a guy who’s willing to think carefully about “what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” This is way beyond slick. Perhaps we should start calling him, “Existential Willie.”

    Salon

    So Larry, if you were married and your wife was sexually assaulted by another man, an elected official, should that official be legally punished in any way? Or would you just say it is some phony sex scandal so your wife has to suffer?

  31. #31 by cav on March 12, 2013 - 9:06 am

    I suppose if you let go of Clinton’s ‘willie’, I could let go of Bush’s lack thereof. (As we all know, ‘Dick’ Cheney filled that roll when it came to ‘President of the World’ class macho endeavor).

    Thanks again to the ‘supreme’ (not) court.

  32. #32 by Larry Bergan on March 12, 2013 - 6:14 pm

    brewski:

    I guess you’re getting back to accusing Clinton of sexually assaulting someone. I have no idea of knowing if that ever happened because we spent 60 million trying to get him for a blow job, NOT sexual assault. THAT is a phony sex scandal.

    cav:

    I just learned that Showtime is making a documentary about the Chenster. He is asked if he would do the same murderous things he did and he replies something like, ‘in a minute’.

  33. #33 by brewski on March 12, 2013 - 6:25 pm

    Willie didn’t perjure himself about the assault. He did about the blow job.

  34. #34 by cav on March 12, 2013 - 6:31 pm

    “in a minute, every minute” and here BillS is trying to persuade everyone Richard Warnick is worse than a million Zimmermans. Well, I’ll be.

    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

  35. #35 by Larry Bergan on March 12, 2013 - 7:09 pm

    brewski says:

    [Bill Clinton] didn’t perjure himself about the assault. He did about the blow job.

    He was never ASKED about a sexual assault under oath, just a blow job.

    George-the-lesser was never asked ANYTHING under oath, including really serious questions about 911. Bill Clinton said he WOULD answer questions about 911 under oath.

  36. #36 by brewski on March 12, 2013 - 7:42 pm

    That wasn’t the scope of the investigation at the time, so that is why it wasn’t asked.

    I am disappointed that you think it is OK for the president to sexually assault a married woman in the Oval Office. Have you no shame?

  37. #37 by Larry Bergan on March 12, 2013 - 8:07 pm

    Why should I believe anything, anybody said about Bill Clinton. Monica may have been a plant. Republicans play dirty.

    The scope of the investigation was to GET Bill Clinton, and so we spent over ten times more then we did to investigate what happened on 911, but go ahead and ignore that fact if you want to.

    If George W. had sex with infants in the oval office, nothing would have happened and the press would have protected his privileged ass all the way. You know it’s true.

  38. #38 by cav on March 12, 2013 - 9:46 pm

    Omniscopic mission creep. Operating principle of the ‘vast right wing conspirators’. With an occasional ‘catastrophic success’ and always – plausible deniability.

    It”s worked pretty well thus far.

  39. #39 by cav on March 12, 2013 - 10:07 pm

    The Bob that can be described, is not the ‘true’ Bob.

    Give it what time ya got, but, remember, it is corrupting.

    http://vimeo.com/23428684

  40. #40 by Larry Bergan on March 12, 2013 - 10:10 pm

    On plausible deniability:

    If it doesn’t seem plausible now, it will after we drill it into your head as we roll out the advertising campaign.

    ~Andrew Card (paraphrasing).

  41. #41 by Larry Bergan on March 12, 2013 - 10:54 pm

    cav:

    Your video proves that special effects don’t mean much if you don’t have a story.

    I love it!

    I knew I had seen Bob somewhere before. He was part of the graphical character set of the Atari ST.

    Ahh, the eighties!

  42. #42 by brewski on March 13, 2013 - 10:08 am

    “investigate what happened on 911,”

    You don’t know what happened? Let me simplify it for you. A bunch of Muslim terrorists hijacked three airplanes. Two of them were crashed into the WTC. In the third the other passengers rushed the terrorists and it crashed in a field in PA.

    Any questions?

  43. #43 by brewski on March 13, 2013 - 10:09 am

    “Why should I believe anything, anybody said about Bill Clinton.”

    Why do you defend a man who sexually assaulted a married woman? You approve of this?

  44. #44 by cav on March 13, 2013 - 10:12 am

    You know, of course, kool aide, besides tasting good, has a devastating impact on the brain cells?

  45. #45 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 10:33 am

    brewski–

    I have a question. What happened to the Pentagon on September 11, 2001?

    • #46 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 12:02 pm

      Richard,

      Why don’t you tell us what you think happened there and at the World’s Trade Center

  46. #47 by brewski on March 13, 2013 - 11:04 am

    I knew I was forgetting something.
    I know several people who were there at the time.

  47. #48 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 12:44 pm

    Bob S.–

    Check the One Utah 9/11 archive.

  48. #49 by Larry Bergan on March 13, 2013 - 6:29 pm

    The republicans think Bill Clinton was responsible for 911. What’s all this crap about razor blades?

  49. #50 by brewski on March 13, 2013 - 6:35 pm

    WALLACE: Do you think you did enough, sir?
    CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him.
    WALLACE: Right.
    CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried.
    So I tried and failed.

  50. #51 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 6:57 pm

    brewski–

    The Bush administration had 8 YEARS to try. Instead, they closed down the CIA unit that was trying to find Osama bin Laden. And I wonder why that OBL video appeared just before Election Day in 2004 – how did that happen, and wasn’t it convenient for Bush that bin Laden was still around to threaten death and destruction?

  51. #52 by brewski on March 13, 2013 - 7:31 pm

    Clinton failed. He said so. Was he lying?

  52. #53 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 7:55 pm

    So if Bush failed and never said so, that makes him a success? Except for trading Sammy Sosa, that is.

  53. #54 by Larry Bergan on March 13, 2013 - 8:16 pm

    This is amazing!

    brewski gives us a transcript of Bill Clinton apologizing – yet AGAIN. Something that Republicans NEVER do. Cheney says that he would make the worst mistake in American history and invade Iraq again, knowing what we know NOW.

    Clinton wasn’t lying. He was admitting he made a mistake, just as Richard Clark did when he stood there before the American people and said, “I have failed you”.

    How can anybody see that as a fault is completely beyond me.

  54. #55 by Larry Bergan on March 13, 2013 - 8:19 pm

    Let’s ask George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, and Richard Clark to go under oath and testify about 911.

    What do you think would happen?

  55. #56 by brewski on March 13, 2013 - 10:20 pm

    “So if Bush failed and never said so, that makes him a success?”
    Nice diversion. Clinton failed. I am glad you conceded that.

  56. #57 by Larry Bergan on March 13, 2013 - 10:42 pm

    brewski:

    You’ve apologized on this blog before. You’re better then your last comment.

  57. #58 by brewski on March 14, 2013 - 6:32 am

    You want me to apologize for Clinton admitting he failed?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: