(05-24-2016 09:50 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:45 AM)john01992 Wrote:  funny how you ignore my rebuttal because it kills your case and yet are still calling me a partisan hack.

I'm not ignoring your "rebuttal." It's not a rebuttal. It's meaningless drivel. From one of our reliable sources of meaningless partisan drivel.

it's only "meaningless drivel" in the eyes of a partisan hack. if it was meaningless drivel you would have refuted it. but you are not refuting it because you can't. instead this whole thread chain reaffirms your stance as a partisan hack and the GOP playing partisan politics.

By the way, in another thread you are attacking me as a libertarian. Here you are attacking me as a republican. Libertarian =/= republican. Make up your mind which insults you want to hurl.

You asked two questions.
No, republicans are not offering to fund it by raising taxes on the "wealthy" (who are already taxed higher here than in most of the rest of the developed world) nor by cutting military spending (which I actually favor, and have posted specific proposals for so doing).
As to whether they are playing politics with a health crisis by using it as an opportunity to defund a democrat initiative, you'll have to ask them. But if so, please explain how that is "partisan hackery" when refusing to transfer funds that could be used because that would be moving money away from a democrat initiative is somehow not partisan hackery. That's my rebuttal, and that's the point that you are either unable or unwilling to address.

(05-24-2016 09:56 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I say *may* because the media generally lets Obama out of these types of situations.

it's just the media and the public being fair to Obama and are seeing past the GOP BS.

(05-24-2016 09:56 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  The fact is we spend more money than we have so whenever something comes up the first question should be "where can we get the money" not "let's print some more".

that didn't seem to matter with Iraq or medicaid part d for republicans. so lets cut the BS.

(05-24-2016 10:03 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:56 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  The fact is we spend more money than we have so whenever something comes up the first question should be "where can we get the money" not "let's print some more".

that didn't seem to matter with Iraq or medicaid part d for republicans. so lets cut the BS.

Both should have mattered to republicans. That's why I'm not a republican.

(05-24-2016 09:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:45 AM)john01992 Wrote:  funny how you ignore my rebuttal because it kills your case and yet are still calling me a partisan hack.

I'm not ignoring your "rebuttal." It's not a rebuttal. It doesn't "kill my case" or even address it, except in the world of extreme partisan hackery. It's meaningless drivel. From one of our most reliable sources of meaningless partisan drivel.

Your argument appears to be that republicans are partisan hacks because they don't want to take funds from things that are important to them, but democrats are not partisan hacks because they don't want to take funds from things that are important to them.

lol you are such a tool:

you still won't address it directly so it's pretty clear that you can't. and for the sake of my sanity please explain how responding with republicans offering to cut their initiatives is only fair if they are asking the dems to cut theirs is an example of "partisan hackery"

you are single handedly proving my point with each post.

(05-24-2016 10:03 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:56 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I say *may* because the media generally lets Obama out of these types of situations.

it's just the media and the public being fair to Obama and are seeing past the GOP BS.

(05-24-2016 09:56 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  The fact is we spend more money than we have so whenever something comes up the first question should be "where can we get the money" not "let's print some more".

that didn't seem to matter with Iraq or medicaid part d for republicans. so lets cut the BS.

It mattered to me... I did not vote GOP in 2004

(05-24-2016 10:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:50 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:45 AM)john01992 Wrote:  funny how you ignore my rebuttal because it kills your case and yet are still calling me a partisan hack.

I'm not ignoring your "rebuttal." It's not a rebuttal. It's meaningless drivel. From one of our reliable sources of meaningless partisan drivel.

it's only "meaningless drivel" in the eyes of a partisan hack. if it was meaningless drivel you would have refuted it. but you are not refuting it because you can't. instead this whole thread chain reaffirms your stance as a partisan hack and the GOP playing partisan politics.

By the way, in another thread you are attacking me as a libertarian. Here you are attacking me as a republican. Libertarian =/= republican. Make up your mind which insults you want to hurl.

You asked two questions.
No, republicans are not offering to fund it by raising taxes on the "wealthy" (who are already taxed higher here than in most of the rest of the developed world) nor by cutting military spending (which I actually favor, and have posted specific proposals for so doing).
As to whether they are playing politics with a health crisis by using it as an opportunity to defund a democrat initiative, you'll have to ask them. But if so, please explain how that is "partisan hackery" when refusing to transfer funds that could be used because that would be moving money away from a democrat initiative is somehow not partisan hackery. That's my rebuttal, and that's the point that you are either unable or unwilling to address.

in that thread you were making a dumb*** comment that comes straight out of the libertarian playbook. in this thread you are defending a typical GOP tactic.

libertarians are simple extremist and more deranged versions of republicans who refuse to admit they are just a fringe group that is even more to the right. the main difference is that where republicans are filled with bigotry and ignorance libertarians are filled with stupidity and ignorance that is far worse. libertarians have their heart in the right place and generally care this nation whereas republicans are simply moral less pricks who are only in it for themselves. the problem is that libertarians have such a lack of understanding about how the world functions that they would do far more damage than the GOP.

libertarians are simply more extreme versions of republicans so there would be a lot of cross over between the two. one of which is trying to curb govt spending at every opportunity including playing partisan politics with a health crisis.

(05-24-2016 10:11 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 10:03 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:56 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I say *may* because the media generally lets Obama out of these types of situations.

it's just the media and the public being fair to Obama and are seeing past the GOP BS.

(05-24-2016 09:56 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  The fact is we spend more money than we have so whenever something comes up the first question should be "where can we get the money" not "let's print some more".

that didn't seem to matter with Iraq or medicaid part d for republicans. so lets cut the BS.

It mattered to me... I did not vote GOP in 2004

well at least you call it when you see it.

(05-24-2016 09:36 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:25 AM)john01992 Wrote:  because only a partisan hack would blame Obama for this. it's the GOP refusing to fund this and "the funds at Obama's disposal" require him to defund something the dems support.

Care to explain how refusing to fund this because it would require moving money from "something the dems support" is not partisan hackery?

are the republicans offering to fund it by offering tax increases on the wealthy or reduction in military spending?

are the republicans trying to take advantage of a health crisis by using this as an opportunity to defund a dem initiative?

Why would they? There was money there that could have been appropriated for Zika, Obama just chose to use it elsewhere.

(05-24-2016 10:19 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:36 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:25 AM)john01992 Wrote:  because only a partisan hack would blame Obama for this. it's the GOP refusing to fund this and "the funds at Obama's disposal" require him to defund something the dems support.

Care to explain how refusing to fund this because it would require moving money from "something the dems support" is not partisan hackery?

are the republicans offering to fund it by offering tax increases on the wealthy or reduction in military spending?

are the republicans trying to take advantage of a health crisis by using this as an opportunity to defund a dem initiative?

Why would they? There was money there that could have been appropriated for Zika, Obama just chose to use it elsewhere.

Even if that were true, there is still a Zika virus problem here. Are they going to point the finger and place blame or are they going to do something about it.

Because at the end of the day, they are going to be on the hook for voting against funding.

(05-24-2016 10:06 AM)john01992 Wrote:  lol you are such a tool:
you still won't address it directly so it's pretty clear that you can't. and for the sake of my sanity please explain how responding with republicans offering to cut their initiatives is only fair if they are asking the dems to cut theirs is an example of "partisan hackery"
you are single handedly proving my point with each post.

Once again, you twist my comments into something that I did not say, in order to avoid responding to the point I made.

If I am working through your tortured syntax correctly, I would respond that asking republicans to go against their priorities is no more or less partisan hackery than asking democrats to go against theirs. Nor is it more or less partisan hackery for republicans to refuse to go against their priorities than it is for democrats to refuse to go against theirs.

What we need is some realization on both sides that this just might be important enough to put aside some of those other priorities. I don't see any of that coming from either side. Do you? How is it partisan hackery for one side to be unwilling to do so, but not partisan hackery for the other side to be unwilling to do so?

For the record, I would say it is partisan hackery on both sides.

(05-24-2016 10:16 AM)john01992 Wrote:  in that thread you were making a dumb*** comment that comes straight out of the libertarian playbook. in this thread you are defending a typical GOP tactic.
libertarians are simple extremist and more deranged versions of republicans who refuse to admit they are just a fringe group that is even more to the right. the main difference is that where republicans are filled with bigotry and ignorance libertarians are filled with stupidity and ignorance that is far worse. libertarians have their heart in the right place and generally care this nation whereas republicans are simply moral less pricks who are only in it for themselves. the problem is that libertarians have such a lack of understanding about how the world functions that they would do far more damage than the GOP.
libertarians are simply more extreme versions of republicans so there would be a lot of cross over between the two. one of which is trying to curb govt spending at every opportunity including playing partisan politics with a health crisis.

You have a much higher regard for republicans, libertarians, and me, than I do for you.

(05-24-2016 10:21 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 10:19 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:36 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:25 AM)john01992 Wrote:  because only a partisan hack would blame Obama for this. it's the GOP refusing to fund this and "the funds at Obama's disposal" require him to defund something the dems support.

Care to explain how refusing to fund this because it would require moving money from "something the dems support" is not partisan hackery?

are the republicans offering to fund it by offering tax increases on the wealthy or reduction in military spending?

are the republicans trying to take advantage of a health crisis by using this as an opportunity to defund a dem initiative?

Why would they? There was money there that could have been appropriated for Zika, Obama just chose to use it elsewhere.

Even if that were true, there is still a Zika virus problem here. Are they going to point the finger and place blame or are they going to do something about it.

Because at the end of the day, they are going to be on the hook for voting against funding.

It is true. This vote won't hurt them, others might, but all it will take is pointing to the $500M Obama spent elsewhere instead of Zika to justify them not appropriating more funds. It's not their fault Obama funded a pet project instead of fighting Zika.

(05-24-2016 10:26 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 10:21 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 10:19 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:36 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Care to explain how refusing to fund this because it would require moving money from "something the dems support" is not partisan hackery?

are the republicans offering to fund it by offering tax increases on the wealthy or reduction in military spending?

are the republicans trying to take advantage of a health crisis by using this as an opportunity to defund a dem initiative?

Why would they? There was money there that could have been appropriated for Zika, Obama just chose to use it elsewhere.

Even if that were true, there is still a Zika virus problem here. Are they going to point the finger and place blame or are they going to do something about it.

Because at the end of the day, they are going to be on the hook for voting against funding.

It is true. This vote won't hurt them, others might, but all it will take is pointing to the $500M Obama spent elsewhere instead of Zika to justify them not appropriating more funds. It's not their fault Obama funded a pet project instead of fighting Zika.

How are they going to fix the problem?

Without reading anything in this thread aside from the title: "The __________ party uses their control over one or more parts of the Federal Gov't to stymie a bill to fund a worthwhile endeavor in order to get a vote on some bill desirous to the _________ party to further its goals." Wow. I'm shocked. I have never seen the Democrats or the Republicans ever do something like this before... LOL, it's the nature of our Duopoly in gov't. Where have you been all these years?

\THREAD

(05-24-2016 10:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 10:16 AM)john01992 Wrote:  in that thread you were making a dumb*** comment that comes straight out of the libertarian playbook. in this thread you are defending a typical GOP tactic.
libertarians are simple extremist and more deranged versions of republicans who refuse to admit they are just a fringe group that is even more to the right. the main difference is that where republicans are filled with bigotry and ignorance libertarians are filled with stupidity and ignorance that is far worse. libertarians have their heart in the right place and generally care this nation whereas republicans are simply moral less pricks who are only in it for themselves. the problem is that libertarians have such a lack of understanding about how the world functions that they would do far more damage than the GOP.
libertarians are simply more extreme versions of republicans so there would be a lot of cross over between the two. one of which is trying to curb govt spending at every opportunity including playing partisan politics with a health crisis.

You have a much higher regard for republicans, libertarians, and me, than I do for you.

I get it. you have no originality and can't deviate from that lame one-liner

good job proving you can't form a rebuttal.

(05-24-2016 10:57 AM)john01992 Wrote:  I get it. you have no originality and can't deviate from that lame one-liner
good job proving you can't form a rebuttal.

Nothing to rebut. Pretty obviously nothing more than hyper partisan nonsense. Standard fare for you.

Again, kindly explain why it is partisan hackery for republicans to "hold Zika funding hostage to their special interests" as stated in the thread title, but not partisan hackery for Obama and democrats to do the same. You can't do that. And without being able to do that, nothing else you write here has any real impact.

(05-24-2016 11:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 10:57 AM)john01992 Wrote:  I get it. you have no originality and can't deviate from that lame one-liner
good job proving you can't form a rebuttal.

Nothing to rebut.

this is only said by the losing side.

(05-24-2016 09:36 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:25 AM)john01992 Wrote:  because only a partisan hack would blame Obama for this. it's the GOP refusing to fund this and "the funds at Obama's disposal" require him to defund something the dems support.

Care to explain how refusing to fund this because it would require moving money from "something the dems support" is not partisan hackery?

are the republicans offering to fund it by offering tax increases on the wealthy or reduction in military spending?

are the republicans trying to take advantage of a health crisis by using this as an opportunity to defund a dem initiative?

you are the ultimate kool-aid drinker owl.

If you'd bother to read, it seems obvious that Republicans think there is enough money already in numerous budgets highly related to the issue to cover it.

You're essentially suggesting that this issue REQUIRES a tax increase or cutting funding from somewhere else, which is precisely the sort of self-fulfilling 'never ending spending' that the Senator is bemoaning.

I'm not saying he's right... but that is a matter of fact to be discovered, and instead you are merely spouting YOUR party line.

Let me help you. The job of HHS/CDC is to deal with outbreaks. They obviously have money in their budgets to cover this. Similarly, there are monies in international (omnibus) budgets to deal with global issues like outbreaks or (as proven by Pres Obama) Global Warming.

Did Obama have to raise taxes to fund global warming initiatives? No. He used funds that were already allocated for similar events... and this SPECIFIC event was authorized by Congress in December.

If you'd like to correct the Senator and claim that there isn't sufficient money in those accounts to cover these expenses, then fine. I honestly don't know... but I'm confident that there are lots of people who DO know, and if what he is saying isn't true, you should easily be able to find conflicting information.

Instead, you're merely moving the goalposts and trying to make a partisan argument... and trying to deflect that argument onto others to try and shield your partisanship.

That may work with stupid people, but you're not dealing with such a person here (Owl)

(05-24-2016 11:05 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 11:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 10:57 AM)john01992 Wrote:  I get it. you have no originality and can't deviate from that lame one-liner
good job proving you can't form a rebuttal.

Nothing to rebut.

this is only said by the losing side.

Again, kindly explain why it is partisan hackery for republicans to "hold Zika funding hostage to their special interests" as stated in the thread title, but not partisan hackery for Obama and democrats to do the same. You can't do that. And without being able to do that, nothing else you write here has any real impact.

That makes you the loser here.