Quote:if you don’t want to stand behind that claim “you heard” then retract it.

(03-09-2021 10:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 08:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 05:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Arguing that only 9% of the bill was COVID related (as OO did)

A flat out lie, Lad.

Not a mis-speak. An untruth.

I refer you to post 1170, where I said "I heard 9%", then immediately said it would depend on definitions.

I guess you will say anything to make your point.

And you fuss about editing by Project veritas.

DDS.

I heard that OO said it was 9%.

Look, absolved from all potential criticism now. What a magical phrase that is - you can just throw it in front of anything and then run away from criticism. Neat.

If you throw out a claim that can be easily fact checked, don’t cry foul when said claim is fact checked. I’ve done nothing but respond to your comment about hearing 9% - if you don’t want to stand behind that claim “you heard” then retract it. But I’m not twisting words here.

(03-10-2021 10:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The fact that Biden cant remember the name of his Defense Secretary at a short event to promote two people to 4 star general is quite the feat.

I was going to make a tongue in cheek post asking people to bid on what day the Word Salad Weekend at Bernie's was actually going to do a press conference -- just telling you he hasnt at this point. My guess is that the odds of him actually doing a presser just went to zero.

(03-10-2021 09:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 10:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 08:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 05:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Arguing that only 9% of the bill was COVID related (as OO did)

A flat out lie, Lad.

Not a mis-speak. An untruth.

I refer you to post 1170, where I said "I heard 9%", then immediately said it would depend on definitions.

I guess you will say anything to make your point.

And you fuss about editing by Project veritas.

DDS.

I heard that OO said it was 9%.

Look, absolved from all potential criticism now. What a magical phrase that is - you can just throw it in front of anything and then run away from criticism. Neat.

If you throw out a claim that can be easily fact checked, don’t cry foul when said claim is fact checked. I’ve done nothing but respond to your comment about hearing 9% - if you don’t want to stand behind that claim “you heard” then retract it. But I’m not twisting words here.

I did hear it. I did not claim it, even though you edited my remarks to make it sound as if I claimed it. THAT editing was a conscious act, not a misreading.

I guess, you, in true Cuomo fashion, are doubling down on your lies. Totally unable to admit your mistake and totally unable to say, whoops, I jumped to a conclusion.

I don't know how much of the $1.9T bill is for Covid and how much is not. We all know and admit some is not. But how much is "some" depends on how you define things. AS I SAID IN MY ORIGINAL POST!

Is it 95% unrelated? Is it 91%? 55%? 20%? I have heard all of the above, and claim none as an absolute correct number, contrary to biased incorrect reports. I claim none, because, AS I SAID IN MY ORIGINAL POST, it depends on the definitions of what is Covid related and why.

Just apologize for (1) misreading my original post, and (2) selectively editing it to make it seem like I said something I didn't, and let's move on.

(03-10-2021 09:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 10:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 08:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 05:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Arguing that only 9% of the bill was COVID related (as OO did)

A flat out lie, Lad.
Not a mis-speak. An untruth.
I refer you to post 1170, where I said "I heard 9%", then immediately said it would depend on definitions.
I guess you will say anything to make your point.
And you fuss about editing by Project veritas.
DDS.

I heard that OO said it was 9%.
Look, absolved from all potential criticism now. What a magical phrase that is - you can just throw it in front of anything and then run away from criticism. Neat.
If you throw out a claim that can be easily fact checked, don’t cry foul when said claim is fact checked. I’ve done nothing but respond to your comment about hearing 9% - if you don’t want to stand behind that claim “you heard” then retract it. But I’m not twisting words here.

I did hear it. I did not claim it, even though you edited my remarks to make it sound as if I claimed it. THAT editing was a conscious act, not a misreading.
I guess, you, in true Cuomo fashion, are doubling down on your lies. Totally unable to admit your mistake and totally unable to say, whoops, I jumped to a conclusion.
I don't know how much of the $1.9T bill is for Covid and how much is not. We all know and admit some is not. But how much is "some" depends on how you define things. AS I SAID IN MY ORIGINAL POST!
Is it 95% unrelated? Is it 91%? 55%? 20%? I have heard all of the above, and claim none as an absolute correct number, contrary to biased incorrect reports. I claim none, because, AS I SAID IN MY ORIGINAL POST, it depends on the definitions of what is Covid related and why.
Just apologize for (1) misreading my original post, and (2) selectively editing it to make it seem like I said something I didn't, and let's move on.

(03-14-2021 02:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What difference does it make whether it's 95% unrelated, or 91%, or 55%, or 20%? The maximum acceptable percentage of pork unrelated to COVID is 0%.

(03-15-2021 08:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-14-2021 02:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What difference does it make whether it's 95% unrelated, or 91%, or 55%, or 20%? The maximum acceptable percentage of pork unrelated to COVID is 0%.

I agree 0 is the ideal, but that is not what the vaunted Democratic leadership wants.
I think we all agree the title is misleading, we just disagree on HOW misleading. Even more misleading than the title is what the Democrats say it is for.

(03-18-2021 09:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 08:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-14-2021 02:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What difference does it make whether it's 95% unrelated, or 91%, or 55%, or 20%? The maximum acceptable percentage of pork unrelated to COVID is 0%.

I agree 0 is the ideal, but that is not what the vaunted Democratic leadership wants.
I think we all agree the title is misleading, we just disagree on HOW misleading. Even more misleading than the title is what the Democrats say it is for.

What Mitch should have done with the second COVID stimulus bill, the $600 one, is to have the senate amend it by substituting wording that eliminated the pork and gave all Americans $2,000. If republican candidates in the Georgia runoffs, which were at that point the most important political events on the calendar, had been able to run on, "You can get $2,000 or you can get $600 and we can bail out the Kennedy Center (or whomever). Take your pick," then I think we would have gotten a different result, even if the democrats cheated. But Mitch is an idiot, so he totally screwed it up.

(03-18-2021 09:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 09:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 08:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-14-2021 02:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What difference does it make whether it's 95% unrelated, or 91%, or 55%, or 20%? The maximum acceptable percentage of pork unrelated to COVID is 0%.

I agree 0 is the ideal, but that is not what the vaunted Democratic leadership wants.
I think we all agree the title is misleading, we just disagree on HOW misleading. Even more misleading than the title is what the Democrats say it is for.

What Mitch should have done with the second COVID stimulus bill, the $600 one, is to have the senate amend it by substituting wording that eliminated the pork and gave all Americans $2,000. If republican candidates in the Georgia runoffs, which were at that point the most important political events on the calendar, had been able to run on, "You can get $2,000 or you can get $600 and we can bail out the Kennedy Center (or whomever). Take your pick," then I think we would have gotten a different result, even if the democrats cheated. But Mitch is an idiot, so he totally screwed it up.

I dont think Mitch had the leeway to amend it. Remember, the ability to amend in a Senate controlled by the opposition is highly limited.
Not a fan of the turtle, but in this regard I dont think he had to the power to do that.

(03-22-2021 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Got in my Covid check. If it is for relief, didn't need it. House paid off in 2003, paid cash for car. If it is for stimulus, won't work. Just went into the bucket, but spending didn't change.

I wonder how many people who got checks fit into either the don't need it or won't spend it categories, or like me, both.

Got my second Covid Vax last week. Thank you President Trump.

At the risk of incurring additional negative rep points, I note the new hospital I wrote about several months ago remains unopened. Small regional branch of a downtown hospital, two stories, I estimate 50-60 beds. I'll let y'all know when it opens, but for now, standng empty.