April 17, 2012
Sin in the Secret Service

When those Secret Service guys get home, they'll have more to worry about than their jobs. Their wife or girlfriend may well expand the scope of the "Stand Your Ground" law. Should she use her dullest kitchen knife to make her "had a good time in Columbia" husband or boyfriend into a boy soprano, there's not a female majority jury in the world that would convict her.

Liberals have been saying, aside from the possible security issues, boys will be boys. Punishment should be a reprimand and let's move on. After all, Bill Clinton was accused of adultery while jogging, indecent liberties in the White House and rape yet he served two terms as President and continues as a lion of the Democrat Party. Go past far right to libertarian and it's what ever you do in the privacy of your government paid hotel room is no business of anyone save you and the hookers.

Leave it to those judgmental Christians to call it what it what it is, sin.

Posted by warrenpeterson at April 17, 2012 04:44 PM | Email This
Comments
1. You appear ludicrous when you attempt to turn this thing into a partisan issue.

But you are correct that right wing evangelicals are quick to point the finger at others who have 'sinned' while simultaneously declaring themselves 'forgiven'.

I too am a Christian and I forgive you for your mean-spirited hypocrisy.

Posted by: dorky dorkman on April 17, 2012 06:22 PM
2. Thanks for the laugh, Warren! We'd never have manly men using prostitutes if it weren't for Clinton and Democrats!

Quick question: How many of those Secret Service agents, soldiers, marines, etc. do you think were liberals?

Posted by: scottd on April 17, 2012 06:31 PM
3. Liberals have been saying, aside from the possible security issues, boys will be boys.

You know,the only person that I know that said that was Britt Hume on O'Reilly last night. So, do you have a cite to a liberal saying it?

And, along those lines, Warren, I'm sure we all remember how conservatives demanded and still are demanding that David Vitter resign from the Senate.

The service should be condemned for even letting anything like this happen. Boys may be boys, but this clearly compromises the President's security. It may be all right for boys to be boys while you keep the police away and sober up after shooting your attorney friend, but this cannot be tolerated.

Posted by: Lionel Hutz Esq on April 17, 2012 06:33 PM
4. They have prostitutes in Colombia???

But seriously, I don't see this as a partisan issue; Obama simply got upstaged by these goofballs who, yes, DID do something wrong. But I disagree with those who would say "well, haha, boys will be boys."

NO, men should act like men. Especially while on duty to protect the president of the United States.

Posted by: Michele on April 17, 2012 06:51 PM
5. .
Does (un)Sound news media critic and outraged citizen at the injustice of erroneous reporting, Jim Miller, read what is posted on this blog?

ROFLMAO Warren!

Posted by: Mike on April 17, 2012 07:21 PM
6. I don't see this as a moral or partisan issue - but as an entitlement issue. Government has expanded exponentially since 9-11 and those in government employ have felt that anything goes - especially under this President.
Sadly the folks who lost focus on their responsibilities will get a slap on the wrist just as the politicians and criminals on Wall Street did after the collapse.
Maybe we should all look at this logically and address it from that point of view eh?

Posted by: h8f8kes on April 17, 2012 08:34 PM
7. Clown at 3~ It may be all right for boys to be boys while you keep the police away and sober up after shooting your attorney friend, but this cannot be tolerated.

Hmm, you must be making reference to the the Vince Foster thing back in the Clintonian era...

The director of the Secret service needs to be put out on his ear. This was a major security breach and shows there is a lack of adult leadership at the highest levels of the Secret service. Then again, there is also a lack of adult leadership in the oval office, however we, the people, will be correcting that mistake in a mere 7 months from now.

Posted by: Rick D. on April 17, 2012 08:52 PM
8. Being self-righteous means you never have to make lick of sense, apparently:

Their wife or girlfriend may well expand the scope of the "Stand Your Ground" law.

Good thing bad grammar ain't also a shootin' offense, eh, warren?

Punishment should be a reprimand and let's move on.

If you have any examples of any "liberals" (your aliteracy aside, I'm holding you to that plural) saying that dereliction of duty is not a serious problem, please provide quotes and links.

After all, Bill Clinton was accused of adultery while jogging...

We liberals admire great physical prowess and amazing dexterity, we admit it! :-)

...indecent liberties in the White House...

So much better than in an airport men's room, no doubt. (Oh, wait, that actually WAS illegal! Well, um, mumble mumble mumble IOKIYAR!!1!)

...and rape...

warren's use of the word "accusation" may imply some court of law was involved. There was none.

...yet he served two terms as President and continues as a lion of the Democrat Party.

Democrats obviously admire balanced budgets and peaceful resolutions to international crises, those evil libs! (Shakes fist.)

Go past far right to libertarian and it's what ever you do in the privacy of your government paid hotel room is no business of anyone save you and the hookers.

And here we thought libertarians opposed government subsidies!

Leave it to those judgmental Christians to call it what it what it is, sin.

Tell me that I've violated some law Bronze Age goat-herders claim to have heard from their sky-fairy, and I couldn't possibly care less. Accuse me of ignoring my job to the point where I endanger others, and you'll get a fight.

Posted by: tensor on April 17, 2012 09:00 PM
9. Go past far right to libertarian..

I do take exception to this classification, warren. libertarian is between both bat shit crazy sides of the extremes of both the right and left. At least to those of us that still acknowledge our right to be and act as sovereign nation(s) and not some dysfunctional one-world roaming band of mobs.

Posted by: Rick D. on April 17, 2012 09:26 PM
10. "Democrats obviously admire balanced budgets"

...yes, because Harry Reid and Co. have done such a good job making a budget in the first place....

Posted by: Michele on April 17, 2012 09:44 PM
11. ...yes, because Harry Reid and Co. have done such a good job making a budget in the first place....

Name a Republican President who signed a balanced federal budget in the last fifty years. Just one.

Posted by: tensor on April 17, 2012 09:49 PM
12. tensor, you have entirely missed my point. Has the Senate done a budget of any kind, lately?

Posted by: Michele on April 17, 2012 09:52 PM
13. Has the Senate done a budget of any kind, lately?

Sure it has. The federal govt is operating under a budget right now. That budget was duly passed by both houses and signed by the president as required by the Constitution.

That may not be the process you wanted, but it's the best both parties could come up with -- and it meets the constitutional requirements.

Posted by: scottd on April 17, 2012 10:10 PM
14. @13 - It meets only your Progressive constitutional requirements, which is unadulterated BS - in other words it is unconstitutional, but what can be done to them besides vote the Democrat senators out in Nov. ?

So, before 2009 when was the last time the Senate failed to pass an annual budget ?

Posted by: KDS on April 17, 2012 10:31 PM
15. kds: Why don't you tell us what the constitutional requirements are for passing appropriation bills and then explain how they've been violated?

And, if you think the federal budget doesn't have a budget right now, kindly explain how its agencies know how much they are authorized to spend.

Posted by: scottd on April 17, 2012 10:49 PM
16. Off-topic: You leftists get tiring in excusing the train-wreck of a Senate. Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough agrees.

On-topic: You have to have respect for these civil servants considering the stress that they endure -
Endless travel burning hydrocarbons in advance of MaObama's constant presidential junkets
Noted abuse from the likes of Hillary Clinton (at least as first lady)
Hiding philandering by Kennedy, Johnson and Bill Clinton
Insults from AlGore, telling his son that if he didn't straighten up, would end up like 'those guys', referring to nearby agents

Apparently the Obamas show no such disrespect as is detailed of his Democrat predecessors, and it is inexcusable to have tarnished their profession by these actions in Columbia.

Posted by: yaddacubed on April 18, 2012 09:08 AM
17. I do apologize for being far too obtuse in this post. Reading the first few comments it is obvious my mixture of some humor and hypocrisy with a dash of truth missed the mark. Still it is always interesting to see how far a field comments on a post go. Who would have thought a Secret Service scandal could lead to a discussion of the Senate's failure to pass a budget? I'll try to do better.

Posted by: warrenpeterson on April 18, 2012 10:37 AM
18. Still, you'd think the Secret Service could find a way to be serviced secretly.

Posted by: Hinton on April 18, 2012 10:45 AM
19. The salient point here is that this happened on Obama's watch.

Why don't the Secret Service men take their jobs seriously enough under this President that they can't use their vast authority to keep from getting caught?

Or maybe they subconsciously wanted to get caught because they either didn't really give a rip about protecting this President or knew that if they did get caught it would be a stain on this President who was unable to curry enough allegiance from his own protection staff that they might do something this stupid?

As yaddacubed noted, when a President takes you away from your home often to satisfy his own Hollywood-like jet-setting and vacationing, maybe you start to get a bit careless and resentful?

This hurts Dems, because voters will make a mental note of who was in office when this happened.

Posted by: Jeff B. on April 18, 2012 11:15 AM
20. And, if you think the federal budget doesn't have a budget right now, kindly explain how its agencies know how much they are authorized to spend.

Posted by scottd at April 17, 2012 10:49 PM

The president signed a budget, in spite of the fact that the Senate had not approved one in the last 3 going on 4 years. A series of Continuing resolutions and raising debt ceiling play into it.

Once again, before 2009 when was the last time the Senate failed to pass an annual budget ? Waiting for your answer.

Posted by: KDS on April 18, 2012 02:21 PM
21. This is a non-story: what the Secret Service guys do on their off-time is their business. Guys (and gals) have been gettin' a little "strange" on the road for years and years. Why do you think they call it the world's oldest profession?

More on to something important. The sexual wxploits of some government employees are none of your business.

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on April 18, 2012 02:42 PM
22. Whatelse would you expect from a former drug dealing crackhead..who lied to become POTUS and all he could do is sell guns to Mexican drug dealers....The SS was just following OweBama's leadership

Posted by: hellpig on April 18, 2012 03:26 PM
23. Obviously these agents are Bush era holdovers judging by their poor behaviors. No doubt the failure of leadership goes back to W. He should rightly take the blame. President Obama can't do everything and only has had a few years to turn things around.

Anyone want the scoop, they need to listen to NorMAN GoldMAN. He tells the truth. If I want a more middle of the road opinion I listen to Ed Schultz.

Posted by: Joanie on April 18, 2012 05:37 PM
24. @23 - Another useful idiot - welcome. Obama has shown no leadership and feigns outrage when he really doesn't care. He just wants to be America's first dick-tator in chief.

He and his radical and corrupt Chicago cronies have scammed too much. Wono't blame this on the President, like Fast and Furious, the tremendous deficit. Blame anything you can think of on Bush - that's it. You and your president need to put down the crack pipe.

Posted by: KDS on April 18, 2012 07:06 PM
25. kds@20: So the president signed a bill that the Senate hadn't passed...

How is this possible? It's pretty clear that you have no idea how this works.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 passed in the Senate (67-32-1) on Dec 17, 2011.

So, we have a budget that was passed by the House and Senate and signed by the president -- just like I said. You are clueless.

Posted by: scottd on April 18, 2012 07:33 PM
26. Oh please. A "Consolidated Appropriations Act" is not a budget. It is well known that the DEMOCRAT controlled senate has ignored and defied it constitutionally required duty for THREE YEARS.

Do You Believe in Miracles? Senate to Mark Up a Budget
Don't get too excited, folks -- Harry Reid still plans to obstruct an actual vote.

Great news: Senate record for shirking responsibility to continue through 2012 elections
Whew. For a while there, we thought that the streak might be coming to an end:

Democrats punt on Senate budget bill for 3rd year...

Senate Democrats on Budget Progress: Never Mind, Actually

A new milestone in Democrat leadership: 3 years without a budget
Who has time for a budget? They've got a lot of regulating to do.

Even as the Democrat Party was applauding President Obama's silly War on Oil Speculators, and salivating at the thought of injecting another $52 million worth of regulators into the economy, they were continuing their disgraceful failure to discharge their actual duties... such as passing a budget for the federal government.
That's right, voters! For the third year running, Senate Democrats decided not to offer a budget resolution... and they told us not to expect one until after the election.

Senate Dems refuse to produce a budget for third year in a row
Harry Reid derails budget committee chairman's efforts.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) has shelved plans to hold a committee vote on a 2013 budget this week because he couldn't get enough members of his own party to back him.


Report: Democrat-controlled Senate laziest in 20 years...

Who's Surprised: Report Says This Senate is Laziest in 20 Years

***

Appropriations measures are under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. These measures provide only about 40% of total federal spending for a fiscal year. The House and Senate legislative committees control the rest. There are three types of appropriations measures. Regular appropriations bills provide most of the funding that is provided in all appropriations measures for a fiscal year, and must be enacted by October 1 of each year. If regular bills are not enacted by the deadline, Congress adopts continuing resolutions to continue funding generally until regular bills are enacted.

***

So yes, your DEMOCRATS are kicking the can down the road, It's like a dumb liberal making the minimum payment on his VISA bill every month while continuing to spend and run up the limit rather than budgeting his income to match his responsibilities.

Irresponsible and DUMB.

And manipulative as Harry Reid has already said he doesn't want the Democrats have to be on record having to address Obama's wild spending in an election year:

The $5 Trillion Man: Debt Has Increased Under Obama by The $5 Trillion Man: Debt Has Increased Under Obama by $5,027,761,476,484.56 in 39 Months

Just stop. Grow the hell up and take ownership of the clowns YOU elected.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 18, 2012 08:44 PM
27. I'm sure Mr. "Hope"less will take time out of his busy golf schedule to comment -- and it will all be GW's fault. For the party feminists claim is the best for women, the track record is pretty grim. It would be interesting to see how they put a spin on this latest escapade.

Posted by: Burdabee on April 18, 2012 09:59 PM
28. So, we have a budget that was passed by the House and Senate and signed by the president -- just like I said. You are clueless.

Posted by scottd at April 18, 2012 07:33 PM

You are obviously clueless and plagierizing because I never said what you claim. Why would the Senate approve a budget that the House passed ? You ass-umed and made one of yourself in the process. Continuing resolutions is what likely happened with the budget that had to be passed by Congress to keep the government operating - you didn't remember that. This was because the budget was unreconciled as the Senate blocked the budget from the House and they did not agree on an actual budget.

The bottom line is that Obama spent us into oblivion and has accumulated $5 Trillion in debt since he has been in office. That's the kind of financial immorality that can occur when the Democratics control 2/3 of the legislative & executive chambers.

Posted by: KDS on April 18, 2012 10:25 PM
29. Oh please. A "Consolidated Appropriations Act" is not a budget.

Rags, if you don't understand that appropriations bills are how Congress enacts a budget, there's not much I can do for you.

And, if it makes you feel happier, please feel free to cut and post a few thousand more words from your favorite wingnut sources. It shows a real independence of thought on your part and explains a lot of your strange comments.


Why would the Senate approve a budget that the House passed ?

You'd have to ask them. But they did and then the president signed it. Don't let those facts bother you too much.


Posted by: scottd on April 19, 2012 12:16 AM
30. Geeeezzz. Someone's a bit delusional. Of course the Senate has not passed a budget for over a 1000 days. Even Ezra Klein* admits this in the WaPost**.

*noted conservative NOT
**noted conservative newspaper NOT

scottd must be in a time warp. Funny to read about outragous $133.9 billion deficits. Oh, the good ol' days.

Posted by: yaddacubed on April 19, 2012 07:20 AM
31. You'd have to ask them. But they did and then the president signed it. Don't let those facts bother you too much.


Posted by scottd at April 19, 2012 12:16 AM

Provide evidence of what he signed - I challenge you - LOL.
No, you'll have ask them because you have pulled that so-called fact from where the sun don't shine. Back at ya, chump - those facts are stubborn things. Keep reading progressive snotnosed propagandists like Ezra Klein who also has his head where the sun don't shine.

Posted by: KDS on April 19, 2012 07:57 AM
32. kds: You're a riot. I gave you the name of the act, the day it was voted on, and the vote count. It's a matter of public record listed on the congressional websites and the Thomas register.

The text of the act is almost 500 pages detailing thousands of line item amounts that Congress allocates to departments, agencies, and programs. All enacted by both Houses and signed by the president.

But that's not a budget. Nope.

Get your lazy ass moving and check it out for yourself if you don't believe me. Or don't. I really don't care what you believe.

Posted by: scottd on April 19, 2012 08:26 AM
33. scottd,

There has been no lawful budget approved for more than 1,000 days. The US House dutifully submits a budget proposal to the Senate yearly only to have it quashed by Dingy Harry Reid, because he knows at least 3 of his Dimocrat colleagues would likely vote in favor of it, given 23 of them are up for election this fall. Then, of course, Obongo would be put on the spot to sign or veto it....a no-win either way.

End of story

Posted by: Saltherring on April 19, 2012 08:43 AM
34. From the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 -- passed by the Senate on Dec 17, 2012 and signed into law on Dec 23:


SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS.
The following sums in this Act are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012.

.
.

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012

TITLE I
MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence ... $43,298,409,000.

MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY
For pay, allowances ... $26,803,334,000.

MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS
For pay, allowances ... $13,635,136,000.


It goes on like that for 486 pages, but hey, that's not a budget. And it wasn't passed by Congress. And it wasn't signed by the president.

Whatever you say...

Posted by: scottd on April 19, 2012 09:06 AM
35. scottd is clearly a devoted liberal little hamster running on his well worn wheel spitting out language to change the meaning of WORDS.
It's sad on 2 levels - either he knows and he's purposely muddying the waters to obscure the FACTS and continues because of his koolaid diet or he doesn't know and refuses to learn... both of which pretty much sum up today's liberals.

Why Democrats won't vote on a budget

... It is no coincidence that the Democrats' failure to pass a budget began immediately after Obamacare became law. In order to hide its $1.7 trillion price tag and $500 billion in tax increases through 2022, Democrats had already exhausted every last budgeting gimmick. As a result, they had no further tricks up their sleeve to pay for the rest of their spending priorities without voting on the massive tax increases that Conrad's new budget contained -- $2.6 trillion, and not just on the rich.

Put yourself in the shoes of the half-dozen vulnerable Democratic senators who are up for re-election this year. Would you want to vote for that?

That is why Reid forced Conrad to pull his budget, even knowing that such a move would create an embarrassing spectacle. To paraphrase another politician, "We're running for office, for Pete's sake!"

Here's a hint for you scott: when the DemocRAT responsible for putting forth a senate budget tells you he hasn't, tells you he won't and tells you why he hasn't and won't, you can and should conclude THERE IS NO SENATE BUDGET ... despite your spinning language manipulation.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 19, 2012 12:57 PM
36. RE 34: what part of These measures provide only about 40% of total federal spending for a fiscal year. do you not understand?

40%.

That's 60% LESS than a complete budget.

Just stop. You need a new hamster wheel.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 19, 2012 01:01 PM
37. Senate Democrats' Budget Fiasco
Imagine if Paul Ryan had produced his budget proposal and put it before his committee, but then John Boehner killed it, insisting that the House should not pass a budget of any kind so that his members could be spared a difficult vote in an election year. Surely had any such thing happened it would have been treated as a monumental leadership crisis among House Republicans and a sign of gross dereliction and disorder.

Well that is exactly what has happened among Senate Democrats this week. Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad proposed a version of the Bowles-Simpson plan as a draft Democratic budget and said he would bring it up for markup and eventually a vote in his committee--which would be the first time the Senate Democrats have actually bothered to propose a budget in nearly three years. But then Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid stepped in and killed the idea, insisting that no budget was necessary and forcing Conrad into a bizarre farce in yesterday's committee markup--which involved no votes, and consisted largely of pleading by the chairman directed implicitly against his own leader.

Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad proposed a version of the Bowles-Simpson plan as a draft Democratic budget and said he would bring it up for markup and eventually a vote in his committee--which would be the first time the Senate Democrats have actually bothered to propose a budget in nearly three years.


Spin scott spin!

What goes up must come down
Spinnin' wheel got to go 'round
Talkin' 'bout your troubles it's a cryin' sin
Ride a painted pony let the spinnin' wheel spin

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 19, 2012 01:13 PM
38. Get your lazy ass moving and check it out for yourself if you don't believe me. Or don't. I really don't care what you believe.

Posted by scottd at April 19, 2012 08:26 AM

No sh** Sherlock, Appropriations are always passed by governments to keep them operating, but the Dems circumvented the budget process on purpose.

You claim doesn't mean jack - its empty and doesn't pass the smell test - you have too much time on your hands. I only wanted to see what you had to offer since you were the one who wanted to make somethingl out of it, and see that it was merely obfuscation to distract from the real issue - you make a good useful idiot/troll. I second what @35 wrote below;

"scottd is clearly a devoted liberal little hamster running on his well worn wheel spitting out language to change the meaning of WORDS.
It's sad on 2 levels - either he knows and he's purposely muddying the waters to obscure the FACTS and continues because of his koolaid diet or he doesn't know and refuses to learn... both of which pretty much sum up today's liberals."

scottd: Keep bringing it if you wish, but credibility and constitutional knowledge is hovering near zero.

Posted by: KDS on April 19, 2012 01:33 PM
39. Gridlock Isn't To Blame for Senate Budget Failures

... But when Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad proposed holding a vote on a budget based on the Simpson-Bowles commission recommendations -- the first meaningful budget vote by Senate Democrats in three years -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promptly pulled out the rug from under him. The Senate will continue to flout its legal responsibility to pass a federal budget.

This is not a failure of bipartisanship, as Senate Democrats stopped passing budgets when their party still had control of the House. The president, in case you haven't noticed, is also a Democrat. After health care, Reid didn't want to force his members in competitive states to cast more tough votes. Any budget that could pass the Democratic-controlled Senate would presumably contain unsustainable deficits as far as the eye can see, broad-based tax increases or both. This is why President Obama's budget proposals can't get a single Democratic vote in either house of Congress.

...let the spinnin' wheel spin

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 19, 2012 02:43 PM
40. A couple more elements lost on our lefty commenters here who say this is a non-issue:

To the extent that these prostitute visits were conducted on their own time, with their own funds at a Columbian brothel, this would be a non-issue.

But by bringing the whores to hotels paid for by the US these men have wasted tax dollars and official US credibility while simultaneously putting the President in greater jeopardy.

And as sworn special protection law enforcement for the President, any action they take that can compromise their ability to protect the president or remain impartial and invulnerable to bribery or coercion is itself a threat to national security.

This is the Secret Service of Hope and Change.

Posted by: Jeff B. on April 19, 2012 03:07 PM
41. Lol this article makes remember me of hilarious thing my pal did, he stepped in to soaked hanckerchief, yelled "craaaaaaa*" and slipped... and food flew to shirt of by stander, this happened at our wedding hehe...\r\n\r\nAnyways story short, you have written very nice article, makes me smile.

Posted by: Rogelio Schoenemann on April 20, 2012 03:43 AM
42. Rogelio makes more sense than any of scottd's posts!

Posted by: Rogelio Fan on April 20, 2012 07:18 AM
43. I was thinking the same, 42. Rogelio must be getting better meds.

Posted by: Saltherring on April 20, 2012 09:48 AM
44. Spin scott, spin ...let the spinnin' wheel spin

Oh wait.

It seems scotty scooted... color me shocked.

Democrat Budget Chairman: 'No Need for a Budget for Next Year'

Reid Halts Budget Process; No Vote Likely Until After Nov. Election

American families make and live by a budget. But not the Congress.

Thursday marks the 1,086th day since Senate Democrats passed a budget plan, despite the fact that doing so merely requires a simple majority vote.

CBO: Obama budget will hurt economy

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Friday that President Obama's 2013 budget will hurt the economy in the long term, arguing the larger deficits it would produce would reduce the amount of capital available to businesses.

After five years, the CBO says, the Obama proposals would reduce economic output by between 0.5 percent and 2.2 percent.

Conrad the Scrivener
The senator just can't be bothered to pass a budget.

Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota is the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. That means he's the Democratic point man for the absolutely essential work of not coming up with a budget.

If this seems an easy, almost no-show job to you, think again. There are two varieties of budgetary boldness. There's bold like Republican House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan. This involves passing out of committee detailed budget resolutions that go on to pass the entire chamber and to spark a full and frank debate about the nation's fiscal future. Then there's Kent Conrad boldness. This involves having the fortitude to defend doing nothing with threadbare rationalizations and weaselly misdirections.

Dick Durbin's Dereliction of Duty. Gen O Debt Bomb

So our President Barack Obama is fond of derisively referring to the Republican House as a bunch of do-nothings, but when his "budget" adding TRILLIONS to TRILLIONS went to Congress it got zero votes. OZERO.

There are some Dems in Congress, yessiree. After voting zero on the President's pathetic budget did they offer a plan of their own? A timid on reform but tax to the max retiring Dem Sen. Kent Conrad the embarrassing North Dakota head of the Budget Committee tried to get a bill through his committee but DEM Sen. Leader Harry Reid and DEM Sen. Dick Durbin (Obama-Bankrupt IL), second in command, put the kibosh on it. But good ole fatboy gov Dick Durbin called it a bipartisan failure


...LET THE SPINNIN' WHEEL SPIN!

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 20, 2012 03:22 PM
45. Great job, Ragnar. So let us ask the father of all lies, Satan, what his son scottd has to say in response?

Dimocrats, progressives, liberals, leftists, Marxists, call them what you like. They are all full of treason, hate, envy, evil and lies. Read Psalm 37 for an apt description of Obongo and his hoards.

Posted by: Saltherring on April 20, 2012 04:43 PM
46. It's funny that the constitutional experts on this thread don't understand that the federal budget is ultimately set by congressional acts such as the appropriation bills that set the specific amounts that can be spent by various departments and agencies (in other words, the budget).

I suppose that's to be expected when your main source of news is the wingnut blogs Ragnar loves to cut and paste from as a substitute for thinking.

The budget resolutions that you are blathering about are not laws and they don't authorize spending.

Now please, continue amongst yourselves.

Posted by: scottd on April 20, 2012 10:58 PM
47. Good riddance, scottd - appreciate it if you keep your word this time. Continue with your head up an orifice where the sun doesn't shiner.

Too bad you, like all other progressive wingnuts cannot make a cogent or credible argument for what you are trying to throw against the wall to try and make it stick. You keep failing to address that the Senate has not passed a budget in 3 going on 4 years. You advocate no accountibility and no constitutional checks and balances - typcial of a progressive/neo-marxist wingnut like yourself. The constituiton is NOT a living document.

Posted by: KDS on April 21, 2012 10:48 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?