WH SENIOR ADVISER DAVID PLOUFFE SOUNDS LIKE A WHINY LIBERAL IN THE ECCIE SANDBOX...

Plouffe responding to Woodward's commentary on Obama sequestration cuts:





The only thing left out of Plouffe's post was a snarky "snick".................liberals are experts at going negative.....5 minutes in the Sandbox will tell you so.

Hmmm, Fauxed-Up'N'Friends must be on TV at your shack. Thanks for sharing this morning's programming.

Sounds like he hit the nail directly on the head.....and you're the whiney little bitch trying to misdirect. Shit, all you do is cry and bitch. About everything.

Apparently it was WH Economic Chief Gene Sperling who emailed Woodward warning him "you will regret this"..........

WTF is the Director of the President's National Economic Council doing injecting himself into national affairs issue ?

Just more proof of how political the Obama WH is from top to bottom; it isn't about what is in our national security - it is about maintaining a protection shield around the failed President Obama.

changing the subject again, Whirlyturd.

And by "going negative" in response to most any of your posts turns it into a positive.

Try posting some substance or posing a question for debate once in a while. .encourage some open discussion rather than the "If you don't agree with me you're an asshole" threads that you crisp out by the dozen.

Don't start no shit, won't be no shit.

Here is a question:

WTF is the Director of the President's National Economic Council doing injecting himself into national affairs issue ?

Another Whiny Liberal Just Like Obama's Plouffe !!!!!!!

changing the subject again, Whirlyturd.

And by "going negative" in response to most any of your posts turns it into a positive.

Try posting some substance or posing a question for debate once in a while. .encourage some open discussion rather than the "If you don't agree with me you're an asshole" threads that you crisp out by the dozen.

Don't start no shit, won't be no shit. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Taking your cues appropriately with the whining....

Sounds like he hit the nail directly on the head.....and you're the whiney little bitch trying to misdirect. Shit, all you do is cry and bitch. About everything. Originally Posted by timpage

Here is a question:

WTF is the Director of the President's National Economic Council doing injecting himself into national affairs issue ? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Wait...wait...wait....I'll take a swing at this softball.

Because the sequester issue has something to do with economics and national affairs? Fucking dimwit.

Nice deflection from the facts:

Sperling was responding to the national security issue that Woodward raised when he commented on MSNBC:

“So we now have the president going out [saying], ‘Because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country.’ That’s a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time,”

That is what pissed Obama and his WH supporters off, resulting in the Sperling threat !

Sperling is NOT qualified to comment on the readiness of our military....if Obama sincerely cared about national security and felt that sequestration was adverse, he could have sent someone from the DOD to make the case...not a hitman with zero military qualifications !

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...cJf2S4F8u2MBNO

Speaking of deflecting from the facts:

Have we now moved from President Obama threatening Woodward to Sparling threatening Woodward?

Did you even read the email? Do you seriously equate what was said to Woodward as "a threat?" Or did Woodward see a chance here to further feed his attention-whore drama queen need to be noticed and to quack into any nearby microphone just so long as it can pick up the sound of his voice.

Again, much ado about nothing. All your comments are plagiarized from the wingnut website echo chambers whose sole mission in life is to attack President Obama. No solutions, no ideas, no candidates, nothing but fucking crybabies who bleat continuously.

QUOTE=Whirlaway;1052425803]Nice deflection from the facts:

Sperling was responding to the national security issue that Woodward raised when he commented on MSNBC:

“So we now have the president going out [saying], ‘Because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country.’ That’s a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time,”

That is what pissed Obama and his WH supporters off, resulting in the Sperling threat !

Sperling is NOT qualified to comment on the readiness of our military....if Obama sincerely cared about national security and felt that sequestration was adverse, he could have sent someone from the DOD to make the case...not a hitman with zero military qualifications !

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...cJf2S4F8u2MBNO[/QUOTE]

Of course it was a threat; but I can see why you now want to say otherwise.....typical MO for Obamatons........

You say something; then when the scrutiny hits, you try to re-define what was said.

Obama uses this tactic daily.....

Speaking of deflecting from the facts:

Have we now moved from President Obama threatening Woodward to Sparling [COLOR="rgb(160, 82, 45)"](it is Sperling) [/COLOR]threatening Woodward? [COLOR="rgb(160, 82, 45)"]I don't know anyone who said it was Obama who made the threat ! Again, you try to deflect with a lie.[/COLOR]

Did you even read the email? Do you seriously equate what was said to Woodward as "a threat?" Or did Woodward see a chance here to further feed his attention-whore drama queen need to be noticed and to quack into any nearby microphone just so long as it can pick up the sound of his voice....


Originally Posted by timpage

[/QUOTE]

Now that the entire emial has been released, it seems pretty innocuous to me, and much more clarified from the original reports

From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013
Bob:
I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. My bad. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall — but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here.
But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand barain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really. It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios — but that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)
I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is diffferent. Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously.
My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.
Gene

From Woodward to Sperling on Feb. 23, 2013
Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening. I know you lived all this. My partial advantage is that I talked extensively with all involved. I am traveling and will try to reach you after 3 pm today. Best, Bob

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2MDdChspS

Of course its a Politico article, so I expect the lefties here to summarily criticize the source rather than the content, as per normal protocol.