(05-24-2016 11:34 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 11:23 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 11:22 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  So if Obama used the money elsewhere, where did he use it? What are the details on that? Sorry, if someone mentioned that earlier, but I didn't see it.

You saw it, but attacked the source. page 4

Ah, so they have to take the money from economic assistance to foreign countries. So the argument is that we should cut economic assistance to other countries to pay for it?

Sure. It's called prioritizing. Bet you do that in your own life nearly daily.

If your roof is leaking do you

A. Pay to fix the roof.

Or

B. Take that money and go on vacation.

And if it's decided sending the American citizens money over to that useless debating club known as the UN, then fine. Find the zika monies elsewhere.

There are, without question, HUNDREDS of other useless endeavors this rather (in the scope of things) small amount of money could come from.

And NOW.

Not having to go in and re appropriate funds by gutting Veterans benefits or putting our Service members at increased risk like some of the extremist, partisan hacks around here would like.

(05-24-2016 02:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 02:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 02:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  As for that other stuff. Not really.

Please post some links or commentary that refute this, or anything meaningful said by the Senator.

Thus far all you guys have done is dismiss the Senator because he's a Republican... Dismiss the article reporting it because it leans right... and dismissed 3 other articles because you don't 'really' believe it.

As someone without a dog in this fight, other than to spend money wisely... I'd like some facts... or at least some 'investigable' claims.

I like facts too but I don't assume facts spouted by one side tell the whole story. In politics, they rarely do. I'm not assuming the Senator is wrong, and I didn't post the thread originally, I'm just not taking his word for it either.

That's fine... in which case you should be 'undecided' at best. That's essentially where I am, other than I haven't seen one single example of anyone directly refuting his claims... I'm not talking about semantics or rounding errors... like he says it's $80byn and it's really only more like $60byn from which we'd like to use $500mm... but of actual claims that there isn't 500mm in ANY of those accounts... or that Zika isn't an appropriate use of international aid funds (but global warming is) or HHS funds.

have you?

Why not?

If you don't want to look, that's fine... but to just assume that a US senator is lying on the public record... but a HuffPo blogger wouldn't ever do similar is not being open minded.

Not saying you're doing that.... that's for you to decide... but it seems clear that a FEW people on here are.

Yes, I am undecided, and yes both sides can be deceptive. Though, you don't have to really lie to be deceptive. You can rattle off facts without it really telling you what happened. I can't say that happened here, but it's politics. I wouldn't be at all surprised.

(05-24-2016 02:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 02:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  As for that other stuff. Not really.

Please post some links or commentary that refute this, or anything meaningful said by the Senator.

Thus far all you guys have done is dismiss the Senator because he's a Republican... Dismiss the article reporting it because it leans right... and dismissed 3 other articles because you don't 'really' believe it.

As someone without a dog in this fight, other than to spend money wisely... I'd like some facts... or at least some 'investigable' claims.

I like facts too but I don't assume facts spouted by one side tell the whole story. In politics, they rarely do. I'm not assuming the Senator is wrong, and I didn't post the thread originally, I'm just not taking his word for it either.

Then great. After 4 pages and a hundred (?) posts on the matter, you still haven't read enough here and elsewhere to make up your mind?

The money is THERE. In abundance. Use it, then zerO can come back and be president petulance all over again, if he likes.

There's so much money just sloshing around out there it's an embarrassment.

And here's a dirty little secret- It HAS to be spent. So therefor it will be.

One of the beautiful aspects of baseline budgeting. Use it or lose it.

This is simply the most profligate admin in our history trying to play politics to smear someone, anyone making at least some effort to slow the insanity.

(05-24-2016 11:34 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 11:23 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 11:22 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  So if Obama used the money elsewhere, where did he use it? What are the details on that? Sorry, if someone mentioned that earlier, but I didn't see it.

You saw it, but attacked the source. page 4

Ah, so they have to take the money from economic assistance to foreign countries. So the argument is that we should cut economic assistance to other countries to pay for it?

Sure. Better to take the desired money from the expenditures that aren't Constitutionally mandated to pay for something else that isn't Constitutionally mandated than to take it from an expenditure that is Constitutionally mandated.

In essence what Obama wants to do would be like taking money away from your mortgage budget to pay for new sod instead of using money you allocated to buy new shrubbery, just writ large.

(05-24-2016 03:10 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Yes, I am undecided, and yes both sides can be deceptive. Though, you don't have to really lie to be deceptive. You can rattle off facts without it really telling you what happened. I can't say that happened here, but it's politics. I wouldn't be at all surprised.

FIne.

The OP is trying to act as if only one side plays such a game. We all know that is crap.

The Senator seems to be implying that lots of money exists in budgets already... and everyone (on both sides) seems to agree with that, with the only question being 'which budgets' it should come from. The Senator seems to be implying that HHS and Omnibus International Aid are appropriate places to look for such funding... which certainly makes sense to me... and he's given an example of something remotely similar where funds in similar amounts were used for such a purpose... and claims that Congress specifically authorized these funds to be used for this purpose in December. SOmething pretty easily refuted if it isn't true.

Now he may be lying... but other than the generic 'they all lie', I haven't seen any specific refuting evidence... and as I said, undesignated funds in HHS and International Aid accounts certainly seem like reasonable places to look for such funding.

If you (or anyone else) disagrees that these are appropriate accounts, then why? Arguing (as some, not you are doing) that we could take it out of Defense or SNAP or whatever else is just a smoke screen/deflection. Those other budgets may well need to be cut, but that shouldn't be our source of funds for international health related issues. They should be international accounts or health accounts or both (if such exists). That's exactly what these are.

I'm not really simply rattling off facts... or accepting his. What I'm doing is saying that his position... that such finds exist in accounts already passes the sniff test with all of us... while the idea that only republicans play such games (the op) does not. and that rather than simply to vote for more spending without considering those existing accounts is something we should ALL encourage.

(05-24-2016 02:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I like facts too but I don't assume facts spouted by one side tell the whole story. In politics, they rarely do. I'm not assuming the Senator is wrong, and I didn't post the thread originally, I'm just not taking his word for it either.

So you take the same position with respect to the "facts" spouted by the other side as well, right?

(05-24-2016 03:30 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 02:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 02:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  As for that other stuff. Not really.

Please post some links or commentary that refute this, or anything meaningful said by the Senator.

Thus far all you guys have done is dismiss the Senator because he's a Republican... Dismiss the article reporting it because it leans right... and dismissed 3 other articles because you don't 'really' believe it.

As someone without a dog in this fight, other than to spend money wisely... I'd like some facts... or at least some 'investigable' claims.

I like facts too but I don't assume facts spouted by one side tell the whole story. In politics, they rarely do. I'm not assuming the Senator is wrong, and I didn't post the thread originally, I'm just not taking his word for it either.

Then great. After 4 pages and a hundred (?) posts on the matter, you still haven't read enough here and elsewhere to make up your mind?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

so let me get this straight:

republicans on here are complaining about Obama diverting $500 million to the UN regarding a climate change initiative. He did that because the GOP blocked funding for it even though it was a completely reasonable request as developed countries had already contributed $10 billion to that fund and it had universal support from the world community regarding what is seen as a critical issue. their reason for the funding request being denied was because they felt that an agreement Obama signed in Paris should be made with their consent, a notion the constitution disagrees with in the first place as Obama was able to do it and their only remedy was holding the purse hostage rather than the courts. all of that because they want to debate and block an issue/initiative that makes the US look like a joke if we don't support it.

so republicans are complaining about that saying the $500 mill could of been used to fight Zika instead while ignoring a $1.9 bill emergency request for Zika because they won't pass it unless loosening trucking regulations are included in the package. Obama is diverting ebola funding for to the tune of $500 mill because congress didn't fund that emergency package.

trying to follow that ==>

trying to follow that while listening to cons justify it by drawing an arbitrary line at the $500 mill being diverted to make up for the $500 mill not being funded rather than the $500 mill being blocked in the first place ==>

trying to follow a con make a rebuttal why trucking regulations are relevant to a massive health crisis in a massively long post without explaining how the two topics could ever be related

trying to follow how cons are accepting an op ed from the most biased source imaginable as valid even though no main stream media news sources are portraying it that way and the only sources that do are far right wing blogs that belong to the 3rd or 4th tier of right wing media and use that original op ed and/or each other as sources for that version of events in the first place. ==>

(05-24-2016 11:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so let me get this straight:

republicans on here are complaining about Obama diverting $500 million to the UN regarding a climate change initiative. He did that because the GOP blocked funding for it even though it was a completely reasonable request as developed countries had already contributed $10 billion to that fund and it had universal support from the world community regarding what is seen as a critical issue. their reason for the funding request being denied was because they felt that an agreement Obama signed in Paris should be made with their consent, a notion the constitution disagrees with in the first place as Obama was able to do it and their only remedy was holding the purse hostage rather than the courts. all of that because they want to debate and block an issue/initiative that makes the US look like a joke if we don't support it.

so republicans are complaining about that saying the $500 mill could of been used to fight Zika instead while ignoring a $1.9 bill emergency request for Zika because they won't pass it unless loosening trucking regulations are included in the package. Obama is diverting ebola funding for to the tune of $500 mill because congress didn't fund that emergency package.

trying to follow that ==>

trying to follow that while listening to cons justify it by drawing an arbitrary line at the $500 mill being diverted to make up for the $500 mill not being funded rather than the $500 mill being blocked in the first place ==>

trying to follow a con make a rebuttal why trucking regulations are relevant to a massive health crisis in a massively long post without explaining how the two topics could ever be related

trying to follow how cons are accepting an op ed from the most biased source imaginable as valid even though no main stream media news sources are portraying it that way and the only sources that do are far right wing blogs that belong to the 3rd or 4th tier of right wing media and use that original op ed and/or each other as sources for that version of events in the first place. ==>

What did the member(s) of the appropriations committee ignore?

Pretty sure there was a copious amount of correspondence on the issue, who exactly was ignoring, what?

Thx.

(05-24-2016 11:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so let me get this straight:

republicans on here are complaining about Obama diverting $500 million to the UN regarding a climate change initiative. He did that because the GOP blocked funding for it even though it was a completely reasonable request as developed countries had already contributed $10 billion to that fund and it had universal support from the world community regarding what is seen as a critical issue. their reason for the funding request being denied was because they felt that an agreement Obama signed in Paris should be made with their consent, a notion the constitution disagrees with in the first place as Obama was able to do it and their only remedy was holding the purse hostage rather than the courts. all of that because they want to debate and block an issue/initiative that makes the US look like a joke if we don't support it.

I make this reply with the full understanding that as a leftist ideologue to the utmost degree you view the Constitution of the United States as something to be ignored unless it fits whatever left-wing policy your party and it's lapdog media is telling you to trumpet so I am prepared for the typical johnnyzero personal and hyper-partisan attack with absolutely no substance and even less intelligence. So here goes.

Use Google to search for Article II Section 2 of the United States Constitution and tell me exactly where it disagrees with "advise and consent".

While you have the Constitution pulled up take a look at Article I Section 9 and see exactly how money is spent by the federal government and who has the authority to say how it is spent. Here's a hint......it ain't the President.

(05-24-2016 11:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so let me get this straight:

republicans on here are complaining about Obama diverting $500 million to the UN regarding a climate change initiative. He did that because the GOP blocked funding for it even though it was a completely reasonable request as developed countries had already contributed $10 billion to that fund and it had universal support from the world community regarding what is seen as a critical issue. their reason for the funding request being denied was because they felt that an agreement Obama signed in Paris should be made with their consent, a notion the constitution disagrees with in the first place as Obama was able to do it and their only remedy was holding the purse hostage rather than the courts. all of that because they want to debate and block an issue/initiative that makes the US look like a joke if we don't support it.

so republicans are complaining about that saying the $500 mill could of been used to fight Zika instead while ignoring a $1.9 bill emergency request for Zika because they won't pass it unless loosening trucking regulations are included in the package. Obama is diverting ebola funding for to the tune of $500 mill because congress didn't fund that emergency package.

trying to follow that ==>

trying to follow that while listening to cons justify it by drawing an arbitrary line at the $500 mill being diverted to make up for the $500 mill not being funded rather than the $500 mill being blocked in the first place ==>

trying to follow a con make a rebuttal why trucking regulations are relevant to a massive health crisis in a massively long post without explaining how the two topics could ever be related

trying to follow how cons are accepting an op ed from the most biased source imaginable as valid even though no main stream media news sources are portraying it that way and the only sources that do are far right wing blogs that belong to the 3rd or 4th tier of right wing media and use that original op ed and/or each other as sources for that version of events in the first place. ==>

We get it, you are a worthless partisan hack that couldn't muster a original thought or form an opinion on your own without the liberal media spoon feeding you.

Take some of the waste, like the $1.5 BILLION I mentioned earlier, and apply it to this issue. The money is there, there is no need for increased spending.

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

(05-24-2016 11:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so let me get this straight:

republicans on here are complaining about Obama diverting $500 million to the UN regarding a climate change initiative. He did that because the GOP blocked funding for it even though it was a completely reasonable request as developed countries had already contributed $10 billion to that fund and it had universal support from the world community regarding what is seen as a critical issue. their reason for the funding request being denied was because they felt that an agreement Obama signed in Paris should be made with their consent, a notion the constitution disagrees with in the first place as Obama was able to do it and their only remedy was holding the purse hostage rather than the courts. all of that because they want to debate and block an issue/initiative that makes the US look like a joke if we don't support it.

so republicans are complaining about that saying the $500 mill could of been used to fight Zika instead while ignoring a $1.9 bill emergency request for Zika because they won't pass it unless loosening trucking regulations are included in the package. Obama is diverting ebola funding for to the tune of $500 mill because congress didn't fund that emergency package.

trying to follow that ==>

trying to follow that while listening to cons justify it by drawing an arbitrary line at the $500 mill being diverted to make up for the $500 mill not being funded rather than the $500 mill being blocked in the first place ==>

trying to follow a con make a rebuttal why trucking regulations are relevant to a massive health crisis in a massively long post without explaining how the two topics could ever be related

trying to follow how cons are accepting an op ed from the most biased source imaginable as valid even though no main stream media news sources are portraying it that way and the only sources that do are far right wing blogs that belong to the 3rd or 4th tier of right wing media and use that original op ed and/or each other as sources for that version of events in the first place. ==>

We get it, you are a worthless partisan hack that couldn't muster a original thought or form an opinion on your own without the liberal media spoon feeding you.

right because using sources from the guardian or NBC is "liberal media spoon feeding" but an op ed from the most biased right wing source imaginable and a number of far right blogs = fair and balanced? ==>

(05-25-2016 02:20 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 11:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so let me get this straight:

republicans on here are complaining about Obama diverting $500 million to the UN regarding a climate change initiative. He did that because the GOP blocked funding for it even though it was a completely reasonable request as developed countries had already contributed $10 billion to that fund and it had universal support from the world community regarding what is seen as a critical issue. their reason for the funding request being denied was because they felt that an agreement Obama signed in Paris should be made with their consent, a notion the constitution disagrees with in the first place as Obama was able to do it and their only remedy was holding the purse hostage rather than the courts. all of that because they want to debate and block an issue/initiative that makes the US look like a joke if we don't support it.

I make this reply with the full understanding that as a leftist ideologue to the utmost degree you view the Constitution of the United States as something to be ignored unless it fits whatever left-wing policy your party and it's lapdog media is telling you to trumpet so I am prepared for the typical johnnyzero personal and hyper-partisan attack with absolutely no substance and even less intelligence. So here goes.

Use Google to search for Article II Section 2 of the United States Constitution and tell me exactly where it disagrees with "advise and consent".

While you have the Constitution pulled up take a look at Article I Section 9 and see exactly how money is spent by the federal government and who has the authority to say how it is spent. Here's a hint......it ain't the President.

ah the same BS that gave us the 8 bench SOCTUS.

"no you see, our views are in-line with the constitution. we are simply banking on technicalities to claim a tactic that clearly violates the spirit of the constitution is perfectly fine because it doesn't specifically ban this tactic." no founding father would ever agree with the notion that that section was designed to be a one way street where congress takes it hostage to prevent the POTUS from having the power handed to him in the constitution.

also the whole notion that it extended to his Paris talks is right wing BS because they obviously didn't try any real legal measures and it got no traction in mainstream media.

(05-25-2016 09:05 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

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

(05-24-2016 11:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so let me get this straight:

republicans on here are complaining about Obama diverting $500 million to the UN regarding a climate change initiative. He did that because the GOP blocked funding for it even though it was a completely reasonable request as developed countries had already contributed $10 billion to that fund and it had universal support from the world community regarding what is seen as a critical issue. their reason for the funding request being denied was because they felt that an agreement Obama signed in Paris should be made with their consent, a notion the constitution disagrees with in the first place as Obama was able to do it and their only remedy was holding the purse hostage rather than the courts. all of that because they want to debate and block an issue/initiative that makes the US look like a joke if we don't support it.

so republicans are complaining about that saying the $500 mill could of been used to fight Zika instead while ignoring a $1.9 bill emergency request for Zika because they won't pass it unless loosening trucking regulations are included in the package. Obama is diverting ebola funding for to the tune of $500 mill because congress didn't fund that emergency package.

trying to follow that ==>

trying to follow that while listening to cons justify it by drawing an arbitrary line at the $500 mill being diverted to make up for the $500 mill not being funded rather than the $500 mill being blocked in the first place ==>

trying to follow a con make a rebuttal why trucking regulations are relevant to a massive health crisis in a massively long post without explaining how the two topics could ever be related

trying to follow how cons are accepting an op ed from the most biased source imaginable as valid even though no main stream media news sources are portraying it that way and the only sources that do are far right wing blogs that belong to the 3rd or 4th tier of right wing media and use that original op ed and/or each other as sources for that version of events in the first place. ==>

We get it, you are a worthless partisan hack that couldn't muster a original thought or form an opinion on your own without the liberal media spoon feeding you.

right because using sources from the guardian or NBC is "liberal media spoon feeding" but an op ed from the most biased right wing source imaginable and a number of far right blogs = fair and balanced? ==>

Well this "op-ed" happened to have been written by a sitting US Senator with far greater knowledge of the topic at hand than you or I. You continued lack of willingness to take what a US Senator says at face value and then to investigate it for yourself only further proves how much of a worthless partisan hack you are. You aren't worth the time it takes to read your drivel, let alone respond further.

(05-25-2016 09:19 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 09:05 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

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

(05-24-2016 11:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so let me get this straight:

republicans on here are complaining about Obama diverting $500 million to the UN regarding a climate change initiative. He did that because the GOP blocked funding for it even though it was a completely reasonable request as developed countries had already contributed $10 billion to that fund and it had universal support from the world community regarding what is seen as a critical issue. their reason for the funding request being denied was because they felt that an agreement Obama signed in Paris should be made with their consent, a notion the constitution disagrees with in the first place as Obama was able to do it and their only remedy was holding the purse hostage rather than the courts. all of that because they want to debate and block an issue/initiative that makes the US look like a joke if we don't support it.

so republicans are complaining about that saying the $500 mill could of been used to fight Zika instead while ignoring a $1.9 bill emergency request for Zika because they won't pass it unless loosening trucking regulations are included in the package. Obama is diverting ebola funding for to the tune of $500 mill because congress didn't fund that emergency package.

trying to follow that ==>

trying to follow that while listening to cons justify it by drawing an arbitrary line at the $500 mill being diverted to make up for the $500 mill not being funded rather than the $500 mill being blocked in the first place ==>

trying to follow a con make a rebuttal why trucking regulations are relevant to a massive health crisis in a massively long post without explaining how the two topics could ever be related

trying to follow how cons are accepting an op ed from the most biased source imaginable as valid even though no main stream media news sources are portraying it that way and the only sources that do are far right wing blogs that belong to the 3rd or 4th tier of right wing media and use that original op ed and/or each other as sources for that version of events in the first place. ==>

We get it, you are a worthless partisan hack that couldn't muster a original thought or form an opinion on your own without the liberal media spoon feeding you.

right because using sources from the guardian or NBC is "liberal media spoon feeding" but an op ed from the most biased right wing source imaginable and a number of far right blogs = fair and balanced? ==>

Well this "op-ed" happened to have been written by a sitting US Senator with far greater knowledge of the topic at hand than you or I. You continued lack of willingness to take what a US Senator says at face value and then to investigate it for yourself only further proves how much of a worthless partisan hack you are. You aren't worth the time it takes to read your drivel, let alone respond further.

The sitting U.S. senator has some valid points but only a hack wouldn't acknowledge the bias in his article and the lack of solution to the problem. Woulda shoulda coulda doesn't cut it.

(05-25-2016 09:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 09:19 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Well this "op-ed" happened to have been written by a sitting US Senator with far greater knowledge of the topic at hand than you or I. You continued lack of willingness to take what a US Senator says at face value and then to investigate it for yourself only further proves how much of a worthless partisan hack you are. You aren't worth the time it takes to read your drivel, let alone respond further.

The sitting U.S. senator has some valid points but only a hack wouldn't acknowledge the bias in his article and the lack of solution to the problem. Woulda shoulda coulda doesn't cut it.

You mean like the possible solutions he offered in the article?

Idea 1 -

Quote:The Department of Health and Human Services, Department of State, and International Assistance Programs currently have about $80 billion in unobligated funds.

Idea 2 -

Quote:In a floor speech last week, I also shed light on the fact that Congress last December provided the Obama administration with authority to pull money from bilateral economic assistance to foreign countries.
They can use those funds to combat infectious diseases, if the administration believed there is an infectious disease emergency.

Funny how facts become bias when one doesn't agree with them.

(05-25-2016 09:34 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 09:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 09:19 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Well this "op-ed" happened to have been written by a sitting US Senator with far greater knowledge of the topic at hand than you or I. You continued lack of willingness to take what a US Senator says at face value and then to investigate it for yourself only further proves how much of a worthless partisan hack you are. You aren't worth the time it takes to read your drivel, let alone respond further.

The sitting U.S. senator has some valid points but only a hack wouldn't acknowledge the bias in his article and the lack of solution to the problem. Woulda shoulda coulda doesn't cut it.

You mean like the possible solutions he offered in the article?

Idea 1 -

Quote:The Department of Health and Human Services, Department of State, and International Assistance Programs currently have about $80 billion in unobligated funds.

Idea 2 -

Quote:In a floor speech last week, I also shed light on the fact that Congress last December provided the Obama administration with authority to pull money from bilateral economic assistance to foreign countries.
They can use those funds to combat infectious diseases, if the administration believed there is an infectious disease emergency.

Funny how facts become bias when one doesn't agree with them.

Facts are facts.

It is a fact that Obama sent money to the U.N.

It is a fact that the money could have been used for Zika.

But by the same token, the moon we spent to go to the moon could have been used also.

It's irrelevant.

At the end of the day, it is also a fact that the republicans voted down the funding.

Own it.

(05-25-2016 09:19 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 09:05 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

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

(05-24-2016 11:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so let me get this straight:

republicans on here are complaining about Obama diverting $500 million to the UN regarding a climate change initiative. He did that because the GOP blocked funding for it even though it was a completely reasonable request as developed countries had already contributed $10 billion to that fund and it had universal support from the world community regarding what is seen as a critical issue. their reason for the funding request being denied was because they felt that an agreement Obama signed in Paris should be made with their consent, a notion the constitution disagrees with in the first place as Obama was able to do it and their only remedy was holding the purse hostage rather than the courts. all of that because they want to debate and block an issue/initiative that makes the US look like a joke if we don't support it.

so republicans are complaining about that saying the $500 mill could of been used to fight Zika instead while ignoring a $1.9 bill emergency request for Zika because they won't pass it unless loosening trucking regulations are included in the package. Obama is diverting ebola funding for to the tune of $500 mill because congress didn't fund that emergency package.

trying to follow that ==>

trying to follow that while listening to cons justify it by drawing an arbitrary line at the $500 mill being diverted to make up for the $500 mill not being funded rather than the $500 mill being blocked in the first place ==>

trying to follow a con make a rebuttal why trucking regulations are relevant to a massive health crisis in a massively long post without explaining how the two topics could ever be related

trying to follow how cons are accepting an op ed from the most biased source imaginable as valid even though no main stream media news sources are portraying it that way and the only sources that do are far right wing blogs that belong to the 3rd or 4th tier of right wing media and use that original op ed and/or each other as sources for that version of events in the first place. ==>

We get it, you are a worthless partisan hack that couldn't muster a original thought or form an opinion on your own without the liberal media spoon feeding you.

right because using sources from the guardian or NBC is "liberal media spoon feeding" but an op ed from the most biased right wing source imaginable and a number of far right blogs = fair and balanced? ==>

Well this "op-ed" happened to have been written by a sitting US Senator with far greater knowledge of the topic at hand than you or I. You continued lack of willingness to take what a US Senator says at face value and then to investigate it for yourself only further proves how much of a worthless partisan hack you are. You aren't worth the time it takes to read your drivel, let alone respond further.

my lack of willingness? It's pretty clear I looked into it as I was able to uncover the full story as seen in the post above.

that op ed was without a doubt written to sway ones political opinions rather than present a fair and balanced approach. politicians pander to dumb people and it is as simple as that. the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that his real argument was "we should have taken $500 mill from foreign aid and spent it on Zika" proves this.

but then again you are the same person who adamantly claims all the governments and companies saying the NC transgender law isn't discriminatory are all wrong even though their total assets combined is in the trillions. so i shouldn't be surprised

(05-25-2016 09:37 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  At the end of the day, it is also a fact that the republicans voted down the funding.

Own it.

LOL...good luck with that.