(05-25-2016 01:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 12:54 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 12:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 12:28 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 12:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  holy hell not only do you not know what the word "fact" means but you are too dumb to realize what a legitimate source is. what you are quoting are the words of a senator. that is not a non-biased or legitimate source. like I said you are a total joke of a poster who digs in no matter how much reality is against you.

hey I need a laugh. can you remind me about that time when you told me that the NC bill was non discriminatory based on your reading of it and took the position that you were personally smarter than all the lawyers/advisors that were at the disposal of 100s of fortune 500 companies, media sources, plus domestic and foreign govts?

I could use a laugh too. Could you answer as to whether or not you actually ready the Charlotte ordinance and HB2?

and you still double down on this. virtually every fortune 500 company and news media outlet has it wrong, and you have it right. wow...with brain power like that what are you even doing here?

making people like you look like clowns.

Over the past 3 years you have referred to people as "partisan hacks" in 25 different threads. That seems to be your go to when presented with facts you don't like.

(05-25-2016 01:38 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 01:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 12:54 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 12:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 12:28 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

hey I need a laugh. can you remind me about that time when you told me that the NC bill was non discriminatory based on your reading of it and took the position that you were personally smarter than all the lawyers/advisors that were at the disposal of 100s of fortune 500 companies, media sources, plus domestic and foreign govts?

I could use a laugh too. Could you answer as to whether or not you actually ready the Charlotte ordinance and HB2?

and you still double down on this. virtually every fortune 500 company and news media outlet has it wrong, and you have it right. wow...with brain power like that what are you even doing here?

making people like you look like clowns.

Over the past 3 years you have referred to people as "partisan hacks" in 25 different threads. That seems to be your go to when presented with facts you don't like.

well this forum is full of them. let's not pretend that this forum doesn't have a very far right wing lean on it. the second biggest faction on this forum are libertarians who have very little power in real world politics because people realize just how extreme and dumb their party platform is.

then you have the republicans on here who are very partisan in regards to mainstream politics. many times the majority of republicans have taken a position that only a very small percentage of the population agrees with. for example the notion that the NC bill is not discriminatory and your reading of the bill makes you of the opinion that what the bill actually says is out of line with what every media outlet including fox news believes.

then there are other examples with water boarding not meaning torture or that guy who was killed by police after being put in a chokehold in NYC was warranted.

this forum will stoop to incredibly low positions because it represents such a partisan faction of the right wing. I must remind you that one of the top topics recently was celebrating the death of a vegan and this current thread is dominated by republicans believing right wing blogs that are two tiers beyond fox news in partisanship.

(05-25-2016 01:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 01:38 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 01:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 12:54 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 12:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  hey I need a laugh. can you remind me about that time when you told me that the NC bill was non discriminatory based on your reading of it and took the position that you were personally smarter than all the lawyers/advisors that were at the disposal of 100s of fortune 500 companies, media sources, plus domestic and foreign govts?

I could use a laugh too. Could you answer as to whether or not you actually ready the Charlotte ordinance and HB2?

and you still double down on this. virtually every fortune 500 company and news media outlet has it wrong, and you have it right. wow...with brain power like that what are you even doing here?

making people like you look like clowns.

Over the past 3 years you have referred to people as "partisan hacks" in 25 different threads. That seems to be your go to when presented with facts you don't like.

well this forum is full of them. let's not pretend that this forum doesn't have a very far right wing lean on it. the second biggest faction on this forum are libertarians who have very little power in real world politics because people realize just how extreme and dumb their party platform is.

then you have the republicans on here who are very partisan in regards to mainstream politics. many times the majority of republicans have taken a position that only a very small percentage of the population agrees with. for example the notion that the NC bill is not discriminatory and your reading of the bill makes you of the opinion that what the bill actually says is out of line with what every media outlet including fox news believes.

then there are other examples with water boarding not meaning torture or that guy who was killed by police after being put in a chokehold in NYC was warranted.

this forum will stoop to incredibly low positions because it represents such a partisan faction of the right wing. I must remind you that one of the top topics recently was celebrating the death of a vegan and this current thread is dominated by republicans believing right wing blogs that are two tiers beyond fox news in partisanship.

Yet you can post nothing to dispute the factual information presented by a sitting US Senator on that website. (Not a blog since it reports and re-posts media articles in a news-like fashion and not a conversational style.)

(05-25-2016 10:33 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 10:28 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 10:24 AM)john01992 Wrote:  your "source" is what a politician says. do you realize what the word "fact" means. "we should spend money here instead of there" is by no means a fact. anyone who graduated HS would know that.

I did not say what the money should be spent on, only that it was there, unallocated, and available for Zika per the law. That's a fact. Any middle school student possesses the reading comprehension necessary to understand that.

and the concept of that money being appropriate for this situation is a matter of opinion.

Sure. 500 mm of 80 BILLION already budgeted for HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES would be an odd choice for funds to fight a virus threatening peoples HEALTH. Too, too funny.

Plain and simple, zerO looking for a political cudgel, partisan hackery at it's finest.

This entire thread is a hoot.

(05-25-2016 01:56 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 01:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 01:38 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 01:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 12:54 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I could use a laugh too. Could you answer as to whether or not you actually ready the Charlotte ordinance and HB2?

and you still double down on this. virtually every fortune 500 company and news media outlet has it wrong, and you have it right. wow...with brain power like that what are you even doing here?

making people like you look like clowns.

Over the past 3 years you have referred to people as "partisan hacks" in 25 different threads. That seems to be your go to when presented with facts you don't like.

well this forum is full of them. let's not pretend that this forum doesn't have a very far right wing lean on it. the second biggest faction on this forum are libertarians who have very little power in real world politics because people realize just how extreme and dumb their party platform is.

then you have the republicans on here who are very partisan in regards to mainstream politics. many times the majority of republicans have taken a position that only a very small percentage of the population agrees with. for example the notion that the NC bill is not discriminatory and your reading of the bill makes you of the opinion that what the bill actually says is out of line with what every media outlet including fox news believes.

then there are other examples with water boarding not meaning torture or that guy who was killed by police after being put in a chokehold in NYC was warranted.

this forum will stoop to incredibly low positions because it represents such a partisan faction of the right wing. I must remind you that one of the top topics recently was celebrating the death of a vegan and this current thread is dominated by republicans believing right wing blogs that are two tiers beyond fox news in partisanship.

Yet you can post nothing to dispute the factual information presented by a sitting US Senator on that website. (Not a blog since it reports and re-posts media articles in a news-like fashion and not a conversational style.)

the burden of proof is on you guys to show exactly how that money is available, how its usage won't neglect what it was originally intended for, and how it is appropriate to use in this situation.

all you have is a simple statement with none of that to back it up and yet you want to consider that a legitimate statement.

(05-25-2016 01:59 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 10:33 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 10:28 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 10:24 AM)john01992 Wrote:  your "source" is what a politician says. do you realize what the word "fact" means. "we should spend money here instead of there" is by no means a fact. anyone who graduated HS would know that.

I did not say what the money should be spent on, only that it was there, unallocated, and available for Zika per the law. That's a fact. Any middle school student possesses the reading comprehension necessary to understand that.

and the concept of that money being appropriate for this situation is a matter of opinion.

Sure. 500 mm of 80 BILLION already budgeted for HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES would be an odd choice for funds to fight a virus threatening peoples HEALTH. Too, too funny.

Plain and simple, zerO looking for a political cudgel, partisan hackery at it's finest.

This entire thread is a hoot.

because the HHS obviously has no budget and doesn't have preexisting projects right?

because the yearly budget for a program should account for an unforeseen crisis for something as serious as zika.

because diverting funds from other projects somehow means those pre-existing projects in the first place. in fact I already mentioned this above and you were either too dumb to make the connection or willingly decided not to. so let me ask again:

if you have preexisting funds meant to resolve problem A but then a completely unrelated and additional problem (let's call problem B) appears. so you and hammy are suggesting we divert the funding meant for problem A to go and resolve problem B. then how is problem A ever resolved without its original funding?

(05-25-2016 02:37 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 01:56 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 01:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 01:38 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 01:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and you still double down on this. virtually every fortune 500 company and news media outlet has it wrong, and you have it right. wow...with brain power like that what are you even doing here?

making people like you look like clowns.

Over the past 3 years you have referred to people as "partisan hacks" in 25 different threads. That seems to be your go to when presented with facts you don't like.

well this forum is full of them. let's not pretend that this forum doesn't have a very far right wing lean on it. the second biggest faction on this forum are libertarians who have very little power in real world politics because people realize just how extreme and dumb their party platform is.

then you have the republicans on here who are very partisan in regards to mainstream politics. many times the majority of republicans have taken a position that only a very small percentage of the population agrees with. for example the notion that the NC bill is not discriminatory and your reading of the bill makes you of the opinion that what the bill actually says is out of line with what every media outlet including fox news believes.

then there are other examples with water boarding not meaning torture or that guy who was killed by police after being put in a chokehold in NYC was warranted.

this forum will stoop to incredibly low positions because it represents such a partisan faction of the right wing. I must remind you that one of the top topics recently was celebrating the death of a vegan and this current thread is dominated by republicans believing right wing blogs that are two tiers beyond fox news in partisanship.

Yet you can post nothing to dispute the factual information presented by a sitting US Senator on that website. (Not a blog since it reports and re-posts media articles in a news-like fashion and not a conversational style.)

the burden of proof is on you guys to show exactly how that money is available, how its usage won't neglect what it was originally intended for, and how it is appropriate to use in this situation.

all you have is a simple statement with none of that to back it up and yet you want to consider that a legitimate statement.

I have presented a sitting US Senator's remarks.
You have presented nothing to contradict those remarks.
The burden of proof lies with you.

John, I'm not going to waste another breath on you

What makes someone partisan is their denial of something based on who said it, or what someone else said they said... and not on whether or not it is true. This defines YOU.

You ASSUME and CLAIM that it isn't true, yet you present no evidence to refute it.

If it's not true (and I've repeatedly said this)... then it should be easy to disprove. I am more than happy to accept that he is a lying POS. I just don't accept your premise that 'because you don't believe it' that it isn't true... especially when EVERYONE seems to agree that budgets have 'slack' in them.

All you've done is deflect...

(05-25-2016 02:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 01:59 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 10:33 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 10:28 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 10:24 AM)john01992 Wrote:  your "source" is what a politician says. do you realize what the word "fact" means. "we should spend money here instead of there" is by no means a fact. anyone who graduated HS would know that.

I did not say what the money should be spent on, only that it was there, unallocated, and available for Zika per the law. That's a fact. Any middle school student possesses the reading comprehension necessary to understand that.

and the concept of that money being appropriate for this situation is a matter of opinion.

Sure. 500 mm of 80 BILLION already budgeted for HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES would be an odd choice for funds to fight a virus threatening peoples HEALTH. Too, too funny.

Plain and simple, zerO looking for a political cudgel, partisan hackery at it's finest.

This entire thread is a hoot.

because the HHS obviously has no budget and doesn't have preexisting projects right?

because the yearly budget for a program should account for an unforeseen crisis for something as serious as zika.

because diverting funds from other projects somehow means those pre-existing projects in the first place. in fact I already mentioned this above and you were either too dumb to make the connection or willingly decided not to. so let me ask again:

if you have preexisting funds meant to resolve problem A but then a completely unrelated and additional problem (let's call problem B) appears. so you and hammy are suggesting we divert the funding meant for problem A to go and resolve problem B. then how is problem A ever resolved without its original funding?

Bless your heart.

How do you dress yourself in the morning?

What is it about "UNALLOCATED" and prioritize that is seemingly so difficult for you to wrap that supposed brain of yours around?

Further, and I'll dumb this down for you, what problem A went unfunded when zerO diverted the aforementioned funds to that useless debating society, the UN?

Pro-tip- answer? none.

There's waaaay more than enough money sloshing around the alphabet soup bureaucracies in our bloated federal Gubment and it goes up each and every year no matter what conditions are at the time.

Take some cash from there.

All I know is, facts that a Senator spits out don't necessarily mean ANYTHING. I think we know that from listening to debates, don't we?

(05-25-2016 05:42 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  All I know is, facts that a Senator spits out don't necessarily mean ANYTHING. I think we know that from listening to debates, don't we?

Fine. Great. We get it. You've said this over and over and over, or some variation of it.

Now, 5 or so pages and hundreds of posts on the topic, replete with links and sources and sound, logical reasoning and you still haven't bothered to look independently into the issue?

Dig around a bit. If/when you find credible info stating the lies in the facts presented, then let us know. I haven't seen that yet at all.

(05-25-2016 06:07 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 05:42 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  All I know is, facts that a Senator spits out don't necessarily mean ANYTHING. I think we know that from listening to debates, don't we?

Fine. Great. We get it. You've said this over and over and over, or some variation of it.

Now, 5 or so pages and hundreds of posts on the topic, replete with links and sources and sound, logical reasoning and you still haven't bothered to look independently into the issue?

Dig around a bit. If/when you find credible info stating the lies in the facts presented, then let us know. I haven't seen that yet at all.

Don't you know it's beneath a liberal to have to look up facts for themselves? They just keep repeating lies or opinions until they've convinced themselves they are right, then they call people names and run off.
Dispicable creatures.

(05-25-2016 06:29 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 06:07 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 05:42 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  All I know is, facts that a Senator spits out don't necessarily mean ANYTHING. I think we know that from listening to debates, don't we?

Fine. Great. We get it. You've said this over and over and over, or some variation of it.

Now, 5 or so pages and hundreds of posts on the topic, replete with links and sources and sound, logical reasoning and you still haven't bothered to look independently into the issue?

Dig around a bit. If/when you find credible info stating the lies in the facts presented, then let us know. I haven't seen that yet at all.

Don't you know it's beneath a liberal to have to look up facts for themselves? They just keep repeating lies or opinions until they've convinced themselves they are right, then they call people names and run off.
Dispicable creatures.

Yea, I'm not expecting much of a return on my request. lol

what's a Zika....is that some new 'ant-acid' to get rid of those that shouldn't?

uh-oh....did I say that???....yeah, I did....

when does the zika conspiracy come out to play???

(05-25-2016 05:30 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 02:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  because the HHS obviously has no budget and doesn't have preexisting projects right?

because the yearly budget for a program should account for an unforeseen crisis for something as serious as zika.

because diverting funds from other projects somehow means those pre-existing projects in the first place. in fact I already mentioned this above and you were either too dumb to make the connection or willingly decided not to. so let me ask again:

if you have preexisting funds meant to resolve problem A but then a completely unrelated and additional problem (let's call problem B) appears. so you and hammy are suggesting we divert the funding meant for problem A to go and resolve problem B. then how is problem A ever resolved without its original funding?

Bless your heart.

How do you dress yourself in the morning?

What is it about "UNALLOCATED" and prioritize that is seemingly so difficult for you to wrap that supposed brain of yours around?

Further, and I'll dumb this down for you, what problem A went unfunded when zerO diverted the aforementioned funds to that useless debating society, the UN?

Pro-tip- answer? none.

There's waaaay more than enough money sloshing around the alphabet soup bureaucracies in our bloated federal Gubment and it goes up each and every year no matter what conditions are at the time.

Take some cash from there.

yeah... I haven't suggested anything of the sort either.

What I've suggested (though this is far simpler than what i've really imagined, based on the total lack of confidence that you could stay with me) is that Ebola was a crisis in 2015, so 2016's budgets of UNALLOCATED funds should contain the same 'fluff' for whatever 2016's crisis' are... and it seems Zika (and whatever we needed to spend money on for global warming that we didn't anticipate and fund in the budget)

My POINT is that when we expand budgets for an unforeseen crisis, that we should only fund ON AN EMERGENCY basis, that which there isn't time to discuss, debate and plan for... meaning that 2016 spending on Ebola shouldn't have required 'emergency', unbudgeted funding.... and that 2017 funding for Zika shouldn't similarly require 'unallocated' budgetary money in 2017, but should instead be ALLOCATED.

What is the purpose of HAVING a budget (or a debt ceiling) if you don't plan on trying to stick to it, but can instead make multi-year, open ended allocations of new monies any time you want? If in 2016, you can pass YEARS of unbudgeted 'emergency' spending.

You seem aware that at some point, ebola (and zika) will cease to be issues that require substantial investment, much less emergency investment... i mean, we certainly don't need 9/11 emergency funding anymore, or Iraq 'surge' emergency funding. At some point, all of those issues become unnecessary... but before THEN, they become 'budgeted' and 'allocated'.

You're certainly free to be of the opinion that such unallocated funds don't exist in these budgets.... and you may be right... but I'm 100% certain that you don't know AT ALL... and because that would be in direct conflict with what someone who SHOULD know has said, if what he had said weren't at least arguably true ( a matter of semantics) I can't believe that someone with your political position, but with far better access to information hasn't been able to discredit his statement.

(05-25-2016 08:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 05:30 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 02:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  because the HHS obviously has no budget and doesn't have preexisting projects right?

because the yearly budget for a program should account for an unforeseen crisis for something as serious as zika.

because diverting funds from other projects somehow means those pre-existing projects in the first place. in fact I already mentioned this above and you were either too dumb to make the connection or willingly decided not to. so let me ask again:

if you have preexisting funds meant to resolve problem A but then a completely unrelated and additional problem (let's call problem B) appears. so you and hammy are suggesting we divert the funding meant for problem A to go and resolve problem B. then how is problem A ever resolved without its original funding?

Bless your heart.

How do you dress yourself in the morning?

What is it about "UNALLOCATED" and prioritize that is seemingly so difficult for you to wrap that supposed brain of yours around?

Further, and I'll dumb this down for you, what problem A went unfunded when zerO diverted the aforementioned funds to that useless debating society, the UN?

Pro-tip- answer? none.

There's waaaay more than enough money sloshing around the alphabet soup bureaucracies in our bloated federal Gubment and it goes up each and every year no matter what conditions are at the time.

Take some cash from there.

yeah... I haven't suggested anything of the sort either.

What I've suggested (though this is far simpler than what i've really imagined, based on the total lack of confidence that you could stay with me) is that Ebola was a crisis in 2015, so 2016's budgets of UNALLOCATED funds should contain the same 'fluff' for whatever 2016's crisis' are... and it seems Zika (and whatever we needed to spend money on for global warming that we didn't anticipate and fund in the budget)

My POINT is that when we expand budgets for an unforeseen crisis, that we should only fund ON AN EMERGENCY basis, that which there isn't time to discuss, debate and plan for... meaning that 2016 spending on Ebola shouldn't have required 'emergency', unbudgeted funding.... and that 2017 funding for Zika shouldn't similarly require 'unallocated' budgetary money in 2017, but should instead be ALLOCATED.

What is the purpose of HAVING a budget (or a debt ceiling) if you don't plan on trying to stick to it, but can instead make multi-year, open ended allocations of new monies any time you want? If in 2016, you can pass YEARS of unbudgeted 'emergency' spending.

You seem aware that at some point, ebola (and zika) will cease to be issues that require substantial investment, much less emergency investment... i mean, we certainly don't need 9/11 emergency funding anymore, or Iraq 'surge' emergency funding. At some point, all of those issues become unnecessary... but before THEN, they become 'budgeted' and 'allocated'.

You're certainly free to be of the opinion that such unallocated funds don't exist in these budgets.... and you may be right... but I'm 100% certain that you don't know AT ALL... and because that would be in direct conflict with what someone who SHOULD know has said, if what he had said weren't at least arguably true ( a matter of semantics) I can't believe that someone with your political position, but with far better access to information hasn't been able to discredit his statement.

errrr...

(05-26-2016 02:12 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 08:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 05:30 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 02:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  because the HHS obviously has no budget and doesn't have preexisting projects right?

because the yearly budget for a program should account for an unforeseen crisis for something as serious as zika.

because diverting funds from other projects somehow means those pre-existing projects in the first place. in fact I already mentioned this above and you were either too dumb to make the connection or willingly decided not to. so let me ask again:

if you have preexisting funds meant to resolve problem A but then a completely unrelated and additional problem (let's call problem B) appears. so you and hammy are suggesting we divert the funding meant for problem A to go and resolve problem B. then how is problem A ever resolved without its original funding?

Bless your heart.

How do you dress yourself in the morning?

What is it about "UNALLOCATED" and prioritize that is seemingly so difficult for you to wrap that supposed brain of yours around?

Further, and I'll dumb this down for you, what problem A went unfunded when zerO diverted the aforementioned funds to that useless debating society, the UN?

Pro-tip- answer? none.

There's waaaay more than enough money sloshing around the alphabet soup bureaucracies in our bloated federal Gubment and it goes up each and every year no matter what conditions are at the time.

Take some cash from there.

yeah... I haven't suggested anything of the sort either.

What I've suggested (though this is far simpler than what i've really imagined, based on the total lack of confidence that you could stay with me) is that Ebola was a crisis in 2015, so 2016's budgets of UNALLOCATED funds should contain the same 'fluff' for whatever 2016's crisis' are... and it seems Zika (and whatever we needed to spend money on for global warming that we didn't anticipate and fund in the budget)

My POINT is that when we expand budgets for an unforeseen crisis, that we should only fund ON AN EMERGENCY basis, that which there isn't time to discuss, debate and plan for... meaning that 2016 spending on Ebola shouldn't have required 'emergency', unbudgeted funding.... and that 2017 funding for Zika shouldn't similarly require 'unallocated' budgetary money in 2017, but should instead be ALLOCATED.

What is the purpose of HAVING a budget (or a debt ceiling) if you don't plan on trying to stick to it, but can instead make multi-year, open ended allocations of new monies any time you want? If in 2016, you can pass YEARS of unbudgeted 'emergency' spending.

You seem aware that at some point, ebola (and zika) will cease to be issues that require substantial investment, much less emergency investment... i mean, we certainly don't need 9/11 emergency funding anymore, or Iraq 'surge' emergency funding. At some point, all of those issues become unnecessary... but before THEN, they become 'budgeted' and 'allocated'.

You're certainly free to be of the opinion that such unallocated funds don't exist in these budgets.... and you may be right... but I'm 100% certain that you don't know AT ALL... and because that would be in direct conflict with what someone who SHOULD know has said, if what he had said weren't at least arguably true ( a matter of semantics) I can't believe that someone with your political position, but with far better access to information hasn't been able to discredit his statement.

errrr...

Speaking THROUGH you... hence the 'either'... sorry

(05-25-2016 06:29 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 06:07 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 05:42 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  All I know is, facts that a Senator spits out don't necessarily mean ANYTHING. I think we know that from listening to debates, don't we?

Fine. Great. We get it. You've said this over and over and over, or some variation of it.

Now, 5 or so pages and hundreds of posts on the topic, replete with links and sources and sound, logical reasoning and you still haven't bothered to look independently into the issue?

Dig around a bit. If/when you find credible info stating the lies in the facts presented, then let us know. I haven't seen that yet at all.

Don't you know it's beneath a liberal to have to look up facts for themselves? They just keep repeating lies or opinions until they've convinced themselves they are right, then they call people names and run off.
Dispicable creatures.

It wouldn't matter what facts I found because you would find a way to not be convinced. This board is too low a priority for me to waste my time "rebutting" every comment an obviously biased politician says.

Explain to me why a fraternity brother of mine is CURRENTLY employed by funding of a Depression-era rural electrification initiative, and we DON'T have a ton of money in the government that could be reallocated.

(05-20-2016 10:22 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 09:45 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 09:32 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I know when I've been licked. Despite her shortcomings which are many she's still preferable to a racist sexist xenophobic religious bigoted fascist.

Donald "2 Corinthians" Trump might pay some convenient lip service to the religious right here and there, but I'm not buying he's religious at all.

Neither do most religious people. But believe it or not the religious right is not as interested in ideologically purity from their politicians as the regressive left.

The religious right has grown up. They used to want to elect people who believed like they do. Now they want to elect people who will protect their right to believe and practice what they do. There is a big difference there, and Trump fits the new model perfectly.