(05-23-2016 04:46 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  $1 to the CDC will do far more to save American lives than $1 for the DOD. It's too bad Republicans are too dumb to realize that.

odd that you'd say this, since this is precisely the point that the REPUBLICAN senator was making in the article, and is not joined by ANYONE on the left.

1) there are all sorts of budgets where unspent and unallocated money already exists that could be spent on this. Yet the administration, the OP and the left insists that we not make choices, but instead just print more money.
2) once you decide to start making choices, you can raise the point you'd like to make, which may or may not carry... but at least it has a start

you have a President who has already done similar things for issues he prioritized.
you have a congress who has essentially given him the blanket authority to do so again (in December)
rather than take that and do it, OR suggest that the money come from a DIFFERENT pot, all we've gotten is to print money?

Seriously... Zika is either under HHS or International Aid or both... and there is unspent money there in those budgets for it. Without the pointless debate (at THIS point) about how large our military should be, why would we raid a DIFFERENT account when unspent money exists in accounts directly related to it?

funny how republicans only care about the CDC when there is an ebola or zika crisis.

anyways you can BS all you want, but it's the republicans blocking it not the dems.

Blocking what, exactly?

The money is THERE. That's the point. That ES wants to spend it his way, and micromanage where and how public funds are allocated to winners and losers is on him.

Make it a serious priority and take the money from one of these other idiotic pet projects, there are hundreds of them.

the money is there ONLY in the context of the dems removing a spending program they want and republicans don't want. it's a typical republican tactic of saying "fair is that I get what I want at your expense in exchange for us agreeing to a common sense piece of legislation."

certainly an unusual definition of "fair." plus I love how you ignore the trucking regulations fiasco.

the republicans are playing party politics with freaking zika. nothing more nothing less. same group who did this with hurricane sandy relief, and the 9/11 first responders. and yet yall keep defending this crap

(05-23-2016 04:54 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:46 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  $1 to the CDC will do far more to save American lives than $1 for the DOD. It's too bad Republicans are too dumb to realize that.

odd that you'd say this, since this is precisely the point that the REPUBLICAN senator was making in the article, and is not joined by ANYONE on the left.

1) there are all sorts of budgets where unspent and unallocated money already exists that could be spent on this. Yet the administration, the OP and the left insists that we not make choices, but instead just print more money.
2) once you decide to start making choices, you can raise the point you'd like to make, which may or may not carry... but at least it has a start

you have a President who has already done similar things for issues he prioritized.
you have a congress who has essentially given him the blanket authority to do so again (in December)
rather than take that and do it, OR suggest that the money come from a DIFFERENT pot, all we've gotten is to print money?

Seriously... Zika is either under HHS or International Aid or both... and there is unspent money there in those budgets for it. Without the pointless debate (at THIS point) about how large our military should be, why would we raid a DIFFERENT account when unspent money exists in accounts directly related to it?

funny how republicans only care about the CDC when there is an ebola or zika crisis.

anyways you can BS all you want, but it's the republicans blocking it not the dems.

Blocking what, exactly?

The money is THERE. That's the point. That ES wants to spend it his way, and micromanage where and how public funds are allocated to winners and losers is on him.

Make it a serious priority and take the money from one of these other idiotic pet projects, there are hundreds of them.

the money is there ONLY in the context of the dems removing a spending program they want and republicans don't want. it's a typical republican tactic of saying "fair is that I get what I want at your expense in exchange for us agreeing to a common sense piece of legislation."

certainly an unusual definition of "fair." plus I love how you ignore the trucking regulations fiasco.

the republicans are playing party politics with freaking zika. nothing more nothing less. same group who did this with hurricane sandy relief, and the 9/11 first responders. and yet yall keep defending this crap

Yep, when my kids were young and acting infantile it would got he same way. Here's the money, if you want a milkshake, pick a flavor, if you want a Klondike bar, grab one.

No, you're not getting both, you haven't been good stewards of what you've gotten so far.

Pretty simple, really.

(05-23-2016 05:17 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:54 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:46 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  odd that you'd say this, since this is precisely the point that the REPUBLICAN senator was making in the article, and is not joined by ANYONE on the left.

1) there are all sorts of budgets where unspent and unallocated money already exists that could be spent on this. Yet the administration, the OP and the left insists that we not make choices, but instead just print more money.
2) once you decide to start making choices, you can raise the point you'd like to make, which may or may not carry... but at least it has a start

you have a President who has already done similar things for issues he prioritized.
you have a congress who has essentially given him the blanket authority to do so again (in December)
rather than take that and do it, OR suggest that the money come from a DIFFERENT pot, all we've gotten is to print money?

Seriously... Zika is either under HHS or International Aid or both... and there is unspent money there in those budgets for it. Without the pointless debate (at THIS point) about how large our military should be, why would we raid a DIFFERENT account when unspent money exists in accounts directly related to it?

funny how republicans only care about the CDC when there is an ebola or zika crisis.

anyways you can BS all you want, but it's the republicans blocking it not the dems.

Blocking what, exactly?

The money is THERE. That's the point. That ES wants to spend it his way, and micromanage where and how public funds are allocated to winners and losers is on him.

Make it a serious priority and take the money from one of these other idiotic pet projects, there are hundreds of them.

the money is there ONLY in the context of the dems removing a spending program they want and republicans don't want. it's a typical republican tactic of saying "fair is that I get what I want at your expense in exchange for us agreeing to a common sense piece of legislation."

certainly an unusual definition of "fair." plus I love how you ignore the trucking regulations fiasco.

the republicans are playing party politics with freaking zika. nothing more nothing less. same group who did this with hurricane sandy relief, and the 9/11 first responders. and yet yall keep defending this crap

Yep, when my kids were young and acting infantile it would got he same way. Here's the money, if you want a milkshake, pick a flavor, if you want a Klondike bar, grab one.

No, you're not getting both, you haven't been good stewards of what you've gotten so far.

Pretty simple, really.

in case you have forgotten what we are talking about here, this is what Zika does:



what a terribly ill advised comment for you to make.

(05-23-2016 10:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  in case you have forgotten what we are talking about here, this is what Zika does:



what a terribly ill advised comment for you to make.

Then why won't Obama use the money at his disposal to take care of this?

(05-23-2016 10:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 05:17 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:54 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:46 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  funny how republicans only care about the CDC when there is an ebola or zika crisis.

anyways you can BS all you want, but it's the republicans blocking it not the dems.

Blocking what, exactly?

The money is THERE. That's the point. That ES wants to spend it his way, and micromanage where and how public funds are allocated to winners and losers is on him.

Make it a serious priority and take the money from one of these other idiotic pet projects, there are hundreds of them.

the money is there ONLY in the context of the dems removing a spending program they want and republicans don't want. it's a typical republican tactic of saying "fair is that I get what I want at your expense in exchange for us agreeing to a common sense piece of legislation."

certainly an unusual definition of "fair." plus I love how you ignore the trucking regulations fiasco.

the republicans are playing party politics with freaking zika. nothing more nothing less. same group who did this with hurricane sandy relief, and the 9/11 first responders. and yet yall keep defending this crap

Yep, when my kids were young and acting infantile it would got he same way. Here's the money, if you want a milkshake, pick a flavor, if you want a Klondike bar, grab one.

No, you're not getting both, you haven't been good stewards of what you've gotten so far.

Pretty simple, really.

in case you have forgotten what we are talking about here, this is what Zika does:



what a terribly ill advised comment for you to make.

Yea, said that. Nasty infectious disease. Which makes my comment only that much more pertinent (I'll pause a second while you look that up ).

Why haven't funds, already budgeted, already available, and not going anywhere else useful, being prioritized for that poor kid and those soon to follow?

ES isn't heading off to another Vegas fund raiser or goff game and can't get around to actually taking care of issues at hand. eh?

Say it ain't so! lol.

The money's there. Why hasn't he moved?

(05-23-2016 10:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 05:17 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:54 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:46 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  funny how republicans only care about the CDC when there is an ebola or zika crisis.

anyways you can BS all you want, but it's the republicans blocking it not the dems.

Blocking what, exactly?

The money is THERE. That's the point. That ES wants to spend it his way, and micromanage where and how public funds are allocated to winners and losers is on him.

Make it a serious priority and take the money from one of these other idiotic pet projects, there are hundreds of them.

the money is there ONLY in the context of the dems removing a spending program they want and republicans don't want. it's a typical republican tactic of saying "fair is that I get what I want at your expense in exchange for us agreeing to a common sense piece of legislation."

certainly an unusual definition of "fair." plus I love how you ignore the trucking regulations fiasco.

the republicans are playing party politics with freaking zika. nothing more nothing less. same group who did this with hurricane sandy relief, and the 9/11 first responders. and yet yall keep defending this crap

Yep, when my kids were young and acting infantile it would got he same way. Here's the money, if you want a milkshake, pick a flavor, if you want a Klondike bar, grab one.

No, you're not getting both, you haven't been good stewards of what you've gotten so far.

Pretty simple, really.

in case you have forgotten what we are talking about here, this is what Zika does:



what a terribly ill advised comment for you to make.

His comment wasn't ill-advised. It was accurate. The only thing ill-advised would be Obama redirecting funds that were available for Zika to a UN climate change program. Guess he doesn't care about central and south American kids suffering from a disease like this, nor does he care about preventing it spreading to the US. All he cares about it his global legacy, don't trouble your dear leader with concerns of the little people.

FWIW you could argue that funding a program about climate change IS tangentially related to infectious diseases given that tropical regions are where they originate.

(05-23-2016 01:29 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:09 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 12:58 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Perhaps I missed it but you've been so busy shooting the messenger that you have neglected to disagree with the fact Obama took 500M of Zika funding and handed it over to the UN for an unrelated effort.

If I did miss it please point me at the post where you show he did not do it..

500M of Zika funding? Can you quote that part of the article because I don't remember reading that part.

Poorly worded on my part... 500 M that *could have went to Zika funding* Obama sent it elsewhere.

Perhaps it could have been used for Zika but when was it determined that the virus was infecting United States citizens.

I didn't see you ask that question when Obama requested $1.8B to fight Zika.

Because I was unaware the he had the opportunity to get the money elsewhere. Which is why I"m asking the question. Did he request the money for Zika before or after he pledged that other money to the U.N.?

(05-23-2016 11:37 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 10:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  in case you have forgotten what we are talking about here, this is what Zika does:



what a terribly ill advised comment for you to make.

Then why won't Obama use the money at his disposal to take care of this?

because only a partisan hack would blame Obama for this. it's the GOP refusing to fund this and "the funds at Obama's disposal" require him to defund something the dems support.

the GOP is playing politics with a major health crisis and you are a dummy if you refuse to see that. on top of that you ignore the trucking regulations fiasco and you ignore that he already diverted 500 million to fight zika that was originally slated to finish off the current Ebola outbreak and that figure is only 25% of what is requested. so please...tell me who is refusing to use the money at their disposal?

if it was the dems blocking this and they said "the money is at your disposal, you just have to cut a major military program or raise taxes on the wealthiest 1%" would you have the same outlook? of course not because you are a partisan hack.

(05-24-2016 12:14 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 10:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 05:17 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:54 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:46 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Blocking what, exactly?

The money is THERE. That's the point. That ES wants to spend it his way, and micromanage where and how public funds are allocated to winners and losers is on him.

Make it a serious priority and take the money from one of these other idiotic pet projects, there are hundreds of them.

the money is there ONLY in the context of the dems removing a spending program they want and republicans don't want. it's a typical republican tactic of saying "fair is that I get what I want at your expense in exchange for us agreeing to a common sense piece of legislation."

certainly an unusual definition of "fair." plus I love how you ignore the trucking regulations fiasco.

the republicans are playing party politics with freaking zika. nothing more nothing less. same group who did this with hurricane sandy relief, and the 9/11 first responders. and yet yall keep defending this crap

Yep, when my kids were young and acting infantile it would got he same way. Here's the money, if you want a milkshake, pick a flavor, if you want a Klondike bar, grab one.

No, you're not getting both, you haven't been good stewards of what you've gotten so far.

Pretty simple, really.

in case you have forgotten what we are talking about here, this is what Zika does:



what a terribly ill advised comment for you to make.

Yea, said that. Nasty infectious disease. Which makes my comment only that much more pertinent (I'll pause a second while you look that up ).

Why haven't funds, already budgeted, already available, and not going anywhere else useful, being prioritized for that poor kid and those soon to follow?

ES isn't heading off to another Vegas fund raiser or goff game and can't get around to actually taking care of issues at hand. eh?

Say it ain't so! lol.

The money's there. Why hasn't he moved?

I will always remember you as the guy who compared Zika funding to wanting a milkshake.

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

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

(05-24-2016 08:06 AM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  FWIW you could argue that funding a program about climate change IS tangentially related to infectious diseases given that tropical regions are where they originate.

That's the point of the "climate change" thrust in regressive leftist politics. You can argue for anything and tie it to climate change.

But in this case the Obama made a judgement, money to UN bureaucrats was more important to him than zika. He's tried to make a political show of zika and it may come back and bite him in the ass.

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

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

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

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

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

you are the ultimate kool-aid drinker owl.

(05-24-2016 09:35 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  He's tried to make a political show of zika and it may come back and bite him in the ass.

LOL republicans were saying the same thing about the govt shutdown. the public knew better then and put the blame on the GOP and they will do the same thing again.

case and point: the only news article the GOPers have posted in this thread was promoted by the heritage foundation and was an op-ed by a GOP senator.

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

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

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

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

are the republicans offering to fund it by offering tax increases on the wealthy or reduction in military spending?
are the republicans trying to take advantage of a health crisis by using this as an opportunity to defund a dem initiative?
you are the ultimate kool-aid drinker owl.

Compared to you, not at all.

Which humanitarian causes are more equal than others?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

funny how you ignore my rebuttal because it kills your case and yet are still calling me a partisan hack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(05-24-2016 09:39 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:35 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  He's tried to make a political show of zika and it may come back and bite him in the ass.

LOL republicans were saying the same thing about the govt shutdown. the public knew better then and put the blame on the GOP and they will do the same thing again.

case and point: the only news article the GOPers have posted in this thread was promoted by the heritage foundation and was an op-ed by a GOP senator.

I say *may* because the media generally lets Obama out of these types of situations.

The fact is we spend more money than we have so whenever something comes up the first question should be "where can we get the money" not "let's print some more". Obama had an easy pool of money from which he could have addressed this and then come back and fought over more money for UN green initiatives.

In the end *Obama's* decision may hurt people. He had all the power to get the money there today but just was unwilling to do so.