(05-25-2016 09:37 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  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.

How could money spent 50 years ago to get us to the moon be spent on Zika funding in 2016.

Yes Republicans voted down giving the admin an additional $1.9B when there were already funds available. Instead they only gave the admin 1/3 of that amount and basically told them to use available funds for the rest.

(05-25-2016 09:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 09:37 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  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.

How could money spent 50 years ago to get us to the moon be spent on Zika funding in 2016.

Yes Republicans voted down giving the admin an additional $1.9B when there were already funds available. Instead they only gave the admin 1/3 of that amount and basically told them to use available funds for the rest.

I just want to point out that the one accusing others of being partisan hacks is inserting his political opinion as a fact.

(05-25-2016 10:06 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 09:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 09:37 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  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.

How could money spent 50 years ago to get us to the moon be spent on Zika funding in 2016.

Yes Republicans voted down giving the admin an additional $1.9B when there were already funds available. Instead they only gave the admin 1/3 of that amount and basically told them to use available funds for the rest.

I just want to point out that the one accusing others of being partisan hacks is inserting his political opinion as a fact.

Just because you refuse to accept something as fact, does not mean that it is not fact.

[quote]U.S. Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) said that he was pleased that the House had offered a responsible solution “in the midst of an ever-changing health crisis.”

“Beyond the measure passed this week, it is also important to set the record straight on what has already been done to respond to Zika,” Cole said. “For Democrats to suggest that the administration hasn’t already had adequate funding available to immediately confront the emergency is untrue. In addition to the funding measure passed by the House, nearly $600 million has already been deployed for this purpose and been at the disposal of the Administration for dealing with the crisis — using money left over for Ebola and unused HHS administrative costs. Moreover, hundreds of millions of dollars will be considered and dedicated through annual appropriations bills to deal with the ongoing Zika crisis.”


I've provided my sources several times. You have provided no source or citation to prove that there were not funds already available. That makes you the partisan hack that is too willfully ignorant or patently dishonest to carry on a legitimate conversation or debate.

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.

(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.

(05-25-2016 09:37 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  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.

They have owed it. They said that funds were already available to address this crisis.

(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.

side A voted down $1.9 bill for this. that's all there really is to this. anything else is being a partisan hack as none of yall can provide a legitimate source that gives a valid explanation as to why those funds are appropriate for the zika situation.

(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.

the concept that there is several billion available that CAN be used for this situation is FACT.

(05-25-2016 10:42 AM)200yrs2late 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.

the concept that there is several billion available that CAN be used for this situation is FACT.

that statement is only true under the context that the political values of one side is accepted as factual. it's as if you try to be an idiot.

(05-25-2016 10:35 AM)john01992 Wrote:  side A voted down $1.9 bill for this. that's all there really is to this. anything else is being a partisan hack as none of yall can provide a legitimate source that gives a valid explanation as to why those funds are appropriate for the zika situation.

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

A small fraction of this could be reprogrammed and redirected to respond to the Zika emergency and not add any additional debt to our nation’s children. This is exactly the type of authority the Obama administration asked for in 2009 during the height of the H1N1 virus scare.

This is not a partisan idea, it is a reasonable one in light of the medical emergency and the financial reality of our nation.

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.

(05-25-2016 10:45 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 10:42 AM)200yrs2late 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.

the concept that there is several billion available that CAN be used for this situation is FACT.

that statement is only true under the context that the political values of one side is accepted as factual. it's as if you try to be an idiot.

Damn you are dumb. It has nothing to do with political values of one side or the other. There are funds available that can be directed to Zika without further borrowing. THAT IS A FACT

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

Yes... because you are so obviously confused

Quote:republicans on here are complaining about Obama diverting $500 million to the UN regarding a climate change initiative.

No. It is simply being noted. If he cad 'divert' funds for such a purpose, surely he can divert them for others. They are noting the hypocrisy.

Quote: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.

You mean he prioritized it. Fine. They're simply noting that he can prioritize things if he chooses to.

Quote: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.

Obama has disagreed with LOTS of people on what the Constitution says... and he's used the system for his own purposes numerous times. Sucks to be on the receiving end of that, doesn't it. Again with the hypocrisy.

Not to mention continued misrepresentation of 'what the issues are'... which is the whole reason you want to 'get things straight' which is code for, ' let me restate your opinions in a way to make them sound crazy so that I can defeat them because when YOU say them, they don't sound as crazy as I need them to to defeat them'

Quote:so republicans are complaining about that saying the $500 mill could of been used to fight Zika instead

nope... they are saying that the same power to divert money for global warming is the power to divert it for Zika. To act ask if he has no options, when he has previously demonstrated that he does when he WANTS to, is hypocritical.

Quote: 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.

again, that's not what the Senator is saying... nor has anyone else that I've seen. I suspect that there are other similar 'pork' items in the 1.9bil bill, if 500mm addresses it.

Quote:Obama is diverting ebola funding for to the tune of $500 mill because congress didn't fund that emergency package.

because the ebola funding previously passed is IN EXCESS of what is being spent on the issus as the crisis that once existed has abated to a large degree.

Quote: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 ==>

exhibit #1 of you saying something nonsensical that nobody else said in order to make someone else sound nonsensical?

Quote: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

Ignoring the libs who suggested we cut national defense.

Quote: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. ==>

You consider a Senator explaining what he said on the floor as an op ed, but this entire thread is based on a blogger from HuffPo?

Get serious. Nobody on here is stupid enough to buy that... even other libs are shaking their head at you, quietly.

(05-25-2016 10:33 AM)john01992 Wrote:  [quote='john01992' pid='13287014' dateline='1464190537']
side A voted down $1.9 bill for this. that's all there really is to this. anything else is being a partisan hack as none of yall can provide a legitimate source that gives a valid explanation as to why those funds are appropriate for the zika situation.

Did congress specifically authorize Obama to use international aid monies to combat Zika? Yes, they did. So obviously they are appropriate because a) they make logical sense in the English language and b) congress specifically authorized it.

According to Senator James Lankford, (link on page 1) who serves on the Budget committee as well as the committee on government oversight and reform The Department of Health and Human Services, Department of State, and International Assistance Programs currently have about $80 billion in unobligated funds. Though he's obviously partisan by nature, he's also a legitimate source for budgetary questions.

Would you consider Zika an issue for health and human services? Would you consider it an international (State) issue? Would you consider helping other countries deal with the issue 'international assistance'? Do you consider logic to be a 'legitimate source'? Those all make sense to me.


So yes, as Lankford said.... while the issue IS being voted down, it is because sufficient funds already exist in accounts that HE says (and logic agrees) are appropriate sources for such spending... AND Congress specifically authorized.

It seems democrats are insistent on further expanding the budget and increasing the defecit, and are willing to lie and mislead for political purposes only to accomplish that.

(05-25-2016 10:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 10:35 AM)john01992 Wrote:  side A voted down $1.9 bill for this. that's all there really is to this. anything else is being a partisan hack as none of yall can provide a legitimate source that gives a valid explanation as to why those funds are appropriate for the zika situation.

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

A small fraction of this could be reprogrammed and redirected to respond to the Zika emergency and not add any additional debt to our nation’s children. This is exactly the type of authority the Obama administration asked for in 2009 during the height of the H1N1 virus scare.

This is not a partisan idea, it is a reasonable one in light of the medical emergency and the financial reality of our nation.

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.

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.

(05-25-2016 12:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 10:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 10:35 AM)john01992 Wrote:  side A voted down $1.9 bill for this. that's all there really is to this. anything else is being a partisan hack as none of yall can provide a legitimate source that gives a valid explanation as to why those funds are appropriate for the zika situation.

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

A small fraction of this could be reprogrammed and redirected to respond to the Zika emergency and not add any additional debt to our nation’s children. This is exactly the type of authority the Obama administration asked for in 2009 during the height of the H1N1 virus scare.

This is not a partisan idea, it is a reasonable one in light of the medical emergency and the financial reality of our nation.

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.

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.

You consider a Senator explaining what he said on the floor as an op ed, but this entire thread is based on a blogger from HuffPo?

Get serious. Nobody on here is stupid enough to buy that... even other libs are shaking their head at you, quietly.

which libs are you talking about? also isn't NIU one of the moderates on here? because he is calling fabrics on this as well.

According to Senator James Lankford, (link on page 1) who serves on the Budget committee as well as the committee on government oversight and reform The Department of Health and Human Services, Department of State, and International Assistance Programs currently have about $80 billion in unobligated funds. Though he's obviously partisan by nature, he's also a legitimate source for budgetary questions.

anyone who isn't a partisan hack knows how much of a joke the requirements are to sit on a committee. You can disagree with gravity and still sit on an education or science committee. in fact that's not far out of the reality considering we have climate change deniers sitting on science committees.

a congressmen can be a good source, but they can also be an incredibly bad source. in this case he is making an extremely partisan argument, that is unsupported by any real evidence other than his own word.

you are too partisan to see that this is one side choosing to place their political values as a fact. republicans all the time like stating there is massive amounts of funds hanging around that wouldn't make a difference if they were to disappear. one example is on this forum when the kansas public school systems had to end the year early because the tax cuts left them at a massive budget shortfall. rather than blaming that on the massive budget cut the cons on this forum blamed it on the schools because they could have easily stretched that money to make up for the cuts that were at 30% IIRC.

it's a difference of political views. side A thinks money can't be stretched like that. side B thinks the opposite. when you take the viewpoints of one side and let that view point be the end all-be all of reality ==> you are nothing but a partisan hack.

Not to mention continued misrepresentation of 'what the issues are'... which is the whole reason you want to 'get things straight' which is code for, ' let me restate your opinions in a way to make them sound crazy so that I can defeat them because when YOU say them, they don't sound as crazy as I need them to to defeat them'

that's just what happens when I look at news sources that are not ultra partisan blogs and op eds by the most biased people imaginable.

nope... they are saying that the same power to divert money for global warming is the power to divert it for Zika. To act ask if he has no options, when he has previously demonstrated that he does when he WANTS to, is hypocritical.

the title literally says: "Obama Raided $500M for Zika to Finance UN’s Green Climate Fund"

again, that's not what the Senator is saying... nor has anyone else that I've seen. I suspect that there are other similar 'pork' items in the 1.9bil bill, if 500mm addresses it.

first of all it is clear you are uneducated on the topic because the 500 mill came from ebola and doesn't represent the max Obama wanted but the most he could get without causing harm to some other program that the GOP are trying to force him to keep. at no point has obama said 500 mill is all he wants or that is all it will take. secondly you are literally relying on wishful thinking all while claiming to be fair and open minded.

because the ebola funding previously passed is IN EXCESS of what is being spent on the issus as the crisis that once existed has abated to a large degree.

absolutely not: it is still a very smart investment to finish off the current ebloa outbreak and is a common sense program to spend $$$ on. problem is that zika is a much bigger health risk right now. and is both more likely to hit the US than zika and isn't anywhere near a developed vaccine whereas ebola is relatively close to having a vaccine. so it takes priority.

exhibit #1 of you saying something nonsensical that nobody else said in order to make someone else sound nonsensical?

the GOP is faulting obama for diverting funds because it shows hypocrisy. you are saying it's unfair to mention that the only reason he did that is because the GOP blocked funding requests for those measures even though they were perfectly reasonable requests?

Ignoring the libs who suggested we cut national defense.



Would you consider Zika an issue for health and human services?

I don't think someone realizes the diverted funds were sent to HHS to combat zika

Do you consider logic to be a 'legitimate source'?

logic is that we can't magically come up with cash from our current budget to meet an unforeseen crisis.

logic is that if a foreign countries needs assistance due to situation X and then there is a completely unrelated issue called situation Y. diverting funds from X to Y means that the problem of X still goes unresolved. and yet you are trying to claim that you are the logical one

It seems democrats are insistent on further expanding the budget and increasing the defecit,

because we are smart enough to understand that money spent doesn't disappear into thin air. everything is counted in externalities. spending money to resolve human health issues might save us the costs of dealing with them if we let them going unaided and they spiral out of control. it's like trying to save weight on a airplane but one suggests doing that by cutting the engines.

republicans have no shame and can't admit when they are wrong. their decision to not request $1.9 bill and play party politics with it is a truthful and factual as it gets. republicans trying to argue otherwise and have nothing to show for it other than "if you see our political opinions as universally factual...then it is a valid argument."

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

(05-25-2016 12:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 10:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 10:35 AM)john01992 Wrote:  side A voted down $1.9 bill for this. that's all there really is to this. anything else is being a partisan hack as none of yall can provide a legitimate source that gives a valid explanation as to why those funds are appropriate for the zika situation.

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

A small fraction of this could be reprogrammed and redirected to respond to the Zika emergency and not add any additional debt to our nation’s children. This is exactly the type of authority the Obama administration asked for in 2009 during the height of the H1N1 virus scare.

This is not a partisan idea, it is a reasonable one in light of the medical emergency and the financial reality of our nation.

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.

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?

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

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

(05-25-2016 12:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 10:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 10:35 AM)john01992 Wrote:  side A voted down $1.9 bill for this. that's all there really is to this. anything else is being a partisan hack as none of yall can provide a legitimate source that gives a valid explanation as to why those funds are appropriate for the zika situation.

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

A small fraction of this could be reprogrammed and redirected to respond to the Zika emergency and not add any additional debt to our nation’s children. This is exactly the type of authority the Obama administration asked for in 2009 during the height of the H1N1 virus scare.

This is not a partisan idea, it is a reasonable one in light of the medical emergency and the financial reality of our nation.

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.

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?

(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.

(05-25-2016 12:44 PM)john01992 Wrote:  a congressmen can be a good source, but they can also be an incredibly bad source. in this case he is making an extremely partisan argument, that is unsupported by any real evidence other than his own word.

Which is it dumb***?

(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:  

(05-25-2016 10:48 AM)200yrs2late 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?