(05-26-2016 09:26 PM)Claw Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or so he says. For now.

(05-26-2016 08:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

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

(05-25-2016 06:07 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words you can't find anything factual to back your preconceived opinion.

(05-26-2016 09:32 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:26 PM)Claw Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or so he says. For now.

Lol. Doesnt like Hillary, doesnt like Trump, doesnt like his own state. Do something.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(05-26-2016 11:03 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:12 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

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

(05-25-2016 05:30 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

Bless your heart.

How do you dress yourself in the morning?

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

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

Pro-tip- answer? none.

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

Take some cash from there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

errrr...

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

Fair enough.

though I've never been spoken through... Kinda creeps me out.

Something my daughter would watch *shudder*. haha

(05-26-2016 08:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

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

(05-25-2016 06:07 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

So much for the AUP. Despicable little special snowflakes.

(05-27-2016 02:02 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Fair enough.

though I've never been spoken through... Kinda creeps me out.

Something my daughter would watch *shudder*. haha

Oh dear...

I should have said... 'and to add to this'....

Obviously I think you're on the right track and I am the 'hammy' he was referring to

(05-27-2016 06:33 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 08:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

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

(05-25-2016 06:07 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

So much for the AUP. Despicable little special snowflakes.

LOL