Varus,
If you need to insult me, you can make fun of my weigh (I'm sensitive about it). Tard and retarded don't register as insults for me (nor does gay if you were thinking about using that)
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Barack Obama will win the 2012 election
Barack Obama will win the 2012 electionFollow
varusword75 wrote:
He's an attorney.
He has no class.
He has no class.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
varusword75 wrote:
Atard,
He lied about his birth certificate.
Quote:
You keep calling Obama a scumbag, can you list three example
He lied about his birth certificate.
What part?
Quote:
He lied about gitmo.
Saying he was wrong wasn't the same as lying.
Quote:
He accepted a nobel peace prize for doing nothing.
He was chosen - he didn't choose to be awarded it.
Quote:
He spent more in his first years than all the presidents for the last 20yrs combined.
False, for numerous reasons. The fact you're trying to show has to do with only a portion of the debt (public versus private), and the number fudges the fact that 2009 was Bush's budget, not Obama's.
Quote:
He's never worked a real job a day in his life.
What, pray tell, is a real job? Apparently senator and president don't count.
Quote:
He's an attorney.
As are about half of the senate. Amazing that you want the people responsible for the law to actually have a degree in it!
Quote:
He associates with people like Sharpton and the Rev. Wright and outspoken terrorists like Bill Ayers.
Do we really need to go over these things again? It's like 2008 never happened and you need to use the same failed talking points then as now!
Quote:
He's in bed with unions.
Nonsensical accusation is nonsensical. We know you hate unions. F*ck firefighter and police, right?
Quote:
He uses the govn to take over private businesses (banks and car companies).
Obviously false.
Quote:
He insults our allies while bowing to our enemies (literally and figurativly).
Need to be more specific here, so I can tell you exactly how wrong you are.
Quote:
He has no class.
Wahhhhh
A black man should know his place according to Varus Quote:
And I could go on and on.
And still be wrong.
You ever get tired of messing these things up?
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
You don't need to try to insult me by shortening my name...
Honestly, it's really all he's got at this point.
Edited, Apr 12th 2011 3:36pm by Eske
varusword75 wrote:
Quote:
Better living through anti-intellectualism and planned ignorance
Do...
Do you know what you're "Arguing"?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Still curious how Obama lied about his birth certificate according to Varus.
Anyway, I can think of a list of negative things about the president, but none that make him a scumbag.
-His healthcare reform likely won't make much difference for the majority of Americans. It will cover 32 million more people, close the drug prescription donut hole, and not allow people to be denied/dropped because of prior conditions. But it won't lower healthcare costs, nor will it apply true universal coverage.
-Continuing with many of the Bush administration's shadier dealings, such as Gitmo, wire-tapping, and military tribunals. At least with Gitmo he made an effort, but it failed.
-Failing to pass a budget on time when the Democrats had a majority in both houses of Congress. The fear of public sentiment led them to delay, which made not a lick of difference anyway. Now we get the current mess where more social programs will be cut because of that gamble.
-Despite reducing numbers in Iraq, there are still far too many soldiers there. I'd prefer we were out of there entirely. 100%.
-Libya, I feel, was just a terrible idea. Call me heartless if you will, but it's unpopular at home, provides no direct benefit to us, and likely will come back to bite us in the future.
-Despite no longer being in a recession, the economy is still pretty anemic. 9% national unemployment is not a good thing, even if it's slowly getting better.
Those are my primary complaints. There are things I'd like to see the Democratic party and Obama take on, but those are the ones that he himself primarily affected (or failed to affect).
Anyway, I can think of a list of negative things about the president, but none that make him a scumbag.
-His healthcare reform likely won't make much difference for the majority of Americans. It will cover 32 million more people, close the drug prescription donut hole, and not allow people to be denied/dropped because of prior conditions. But it won't lower healthcare costs, nor will it apply true universal coverage.
-Continuing with many of the Bush administration's shadier dealings, such as Gitmo, wire-tapping, and military tribunals. At least with Gitmo he made an effort, but it failed.
-Failing to pass a budget on time when the Democrats had a majority in both houses of Congress. The fear of public sentiment led them to delay, which made not a lick of difference anyway. Now we get the current mess where more social programs will be cut because of that gamble.
-Despite reducing numbers in Iraq, there are still far too many soldiers there. I'd prefer we were out of there entirely. 100%.
-Libya, I feel, was just a terrible idea. Call me heartless if you will, but it's unpopular at home, provides no direct benefit to us, and likely will come back to bite us in the future.
-Despite no longer being in a recession, the economy is still pretty anemic. 9% national unemployment is not a good thing, even if it's slowly getting better.
Those are my primary complaints. There are things I'd like to see the Democratic party and Obama take on, but those are the ones that he himself primarily affected (or failed to affect).
varusword75 wrote:
In less than two years he has doubled the federal deficit, accumulating as much debt as all preceding administrations combined and that's a fact.
You're still wrong, and it's hilarious. I know the talking point you're trying to say, but you're not saying it; and the talking point you're trying to say is so skewed it's ridiculous.
Edit: Oh, and you changed your complaint from before - before it was "He spent more in his first years than all the presidents for the last 20yrs combined." Now you stepped it up to ALL administrations EVER... making the claim even more ridiculous.
Edit2: Forgot to comment on this:
Quote:
I know you suffer from white mans guilt something fierce but come on man. Even you have to get tired of having that d*ck shoved up your as* and just left there.
Only Varus would equate racial matters to gay rape
Got some lingering issues or desires you want to share with the class? Edited, Apr 12th 2011 3:59pm by LockeColeMA
varusword75 wrote:
I say what I mean and mean what I say
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Back to the budget, the cuts are smaller than advertised.
Edited, Apr 12th 2011 2:55pm by Jophiel
Political Wire (I read it so you don't have to!) wrote:
The full extent of the budget deal reached late Friday did not become clear until today "after congressional aides worked all weekend and all day Monday to shape a detailed spending plan based on the framework that Obama and congressional leaders agreed to Friday," the Washington Post reports.
"In several cases, what look like large reductions are actually accounting gimmicks."
National Journal: "The specifics show that finding nearly $40 billion in cuts during the 2011 fiscal year required clever accounting and, for the White House, a willingness to concede on rhetoric to find gains on substance. For example, the final cuts in the deal are advertised as $38.5 billion less than was appropriated in 2010, but after removing rescissions, cuts to reserve funds and reductions in mandatory spending programs, discretionary spending will be reduced only by $14.7 billion."
"In several cases, what look like large reductions are actually accounting gimmicks."
National Journal: "The specifics show that finding nearly $40 billion in cuts during the 2011 fiscal year required clever accounting and, for the White House, a willingness to concede on rhetoric to find gains on substance. For example, the final cuts in the deal are advertised as $38.5 billion less than was appropriated in 2010, but after removing rescissions, cuts to reserve funds and reductions in mandatory spending programs, discretionary spending will be reduced only by $14.7 billion."
Edited, Apr 12th 2011 2:55pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Back to the budget,
SmartDocs Email I Received Last Night wrote:
All military members will receive full pay by April 15 for duty served. There will be more than one deposit into your account, but again, all payments will be deposited by April 15. Check with your bank to confirm the amount deposited into your account by the 15th.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Quote:
discretionary spending will be reduced only by $14.7 billion.
So wait, they ***** and moaned and shuffled feet and pouted and cried, and nagged and pointed fingers, and in the end they Cut 14 billion thats it, and they dropped the riders, big win for the Dems, and what a folley for the GOP, not only did they blackball the tea party, they made them selves look silly infront of the whole nation over a few billion dollars, and now they roll out this gem.
Absolutely priceless.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
varusword75 wrote:
Eske,
Nuh uh. You're wrong. That's the extent of your oh so intellectual argument.
Quote:
Honestly, it's really all he's got at this point.
Nuh uh. You're wrong. That's the extent of your oh so intellectual argument.
What, is my name too short to fuck up?
Eske Esquire wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Eske,
Nuh uh. You're wrong. That's the extent of your oh so intellectual argument.
Quote:
Honestly, it's really all he's got at this point.
Nuh uh. You're wrong. That's the extent of your oh so intellectual argument.
What, is my name too short to fuck up?
Careful, bsphil said the same thing and then all of a sudden he's bsphl or bspil. Next thing you'll know, you're gonna be Aske or Eska or Ske.
LockeColeMA wrote:
Quote:
Those riders were not violations of that pledge. I already countered this argument earlier in this thread. The riders were specific to budget items and were contained in a budget bill. Where the hell else would you put spending restrictions except in such a bill?
A rider is an addition provision tacked onto a bill.
Yes. I'm not sure what you think this means. Riders may include anything. When they include things related to the bill in question, specifically in ways to more narrowly focus on specific aspects of the bill itself, they are perfectly acceptable. So an appropriations bill for "ongoing military effort in Iraq" might start out with that vague language and then have riders added to it which include things like "100 Million must be spent upgrading the armor on humvees" and "20 Million will be spent on developing anti-IED technology".
Riders may include things unrelated to the bill in question. For example, the same appropriation bill could contain a rider saying "50 Million must be spent providing food stamps to unwed mothers". I'm pretty sure that every intelligent person understands that the GOP is speaking of the latter group of riders/amendments in their pledge.
At least most intelligent people get this.
Quote:
A rider is not tackling one issue at a time (as per the PtA).
A rider to win political points included in CR to allow the government to operate for a single week is NOT addressing the issue in the budget.
A rider to win political points included in CR to allow the government to operate for a single week is NOT addressing the issue in the budget.
The riders in question were specific to funding already defined within the bill in question. This was a continuing resolution on a subset of discretionary budget items (non-military specifically IIRC). That includes funding for planned parenthood, the NEA, and NPR, just to name a few things. It is wholly appropriate to make funding decisions about those organizations within the bill defining the budget in which funding for those organizations is included.
Quote:
Know where you "put spending restrictions?" In the budget itself,...
Um... Moron! The budget was never passed by the Democrats like they were supposed to. This CR is a bill which extends the previous budget through this year in order to avoid a mandatory government shutdown. I suspect you don't understand what's going on here. The CR *is* the remaining budget for those discretionary items for the remainder of this year (or until congress passes a budget for next year).
Quote:
...not a CR to fund the government for a week - and especially not when it means shutting down the government and delaying pay to the military.
They were trying to put those riders into the budget for the remaining year, not just for a week. The Dems balked, so the GOP proposed an alternative which would pay out military paychecks for a week in return for passing the riders. I've already explained why they proposed this. It was specifically about showing which thing the Dems cared about more, paychecks for the military or funding for planned parenthood. As you say, this was a one week thing anyway, so it was never intended to be a full solution for anything.
Why do *you* think they proposed that? Seriously. Stop and think about it for a second.
Quote:
The riders were a complete violation of the pledge - if you think shutting down Planned Parenthood, or restricting access to abortion in DC (completely legal, by the way) is not political, then you're just delusional. What part of "unpopular" and "must pass" legislation did you not quite understand?
Every part of the budget making process is "political". Otherwise no one would ever need to debate and negotiate, right? Let's not forget that this is a budget that the Dems were supposed to pass last year, and failed to do so. Suggesting that the GOP is somehow wrong because they promised to cut spending this year and in the CR designed to extend the budget through this year they attempted to cut spending seems to be a gross misunderstanding of what said promise was about.
I do understand what "unpopular" means. The problem is that it seems like a whole lot of spending cuts are "unpopular" to the Dems. Seems a bit unfair to just declare anything the other side does as unpopular and thus off limits somehow. Don't you agree?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
varusword75 wrote:
Atard,
He lied about his birth certificate.
He lied about gitmo.
He accepted a nobel peace prize for doing nothing.
He spent more in his first years than all the presidents for the last 20yrs combined.
He's never worked a real job a day in his life.
He's an attorney.
He associates with people like Sharpton and the Rev. Wright and outspoken terrorists like Bill Ayers.
He's in bed with unions.
He uses the govn to take over private businesses (banks and car companies).
He insults our allies while bowing to our enemies (literally and figurativly).
He has no class.
And I could go on and on.
Quote:
You keep calling Obama a scumbag, can you list three example
He lied about his birth certificate.
He lied about gitmo.
He accepted a nobel peace prize for doing nothing.
He spent more in his first years than all the presidents for the last 20yrs combined.
He's never worked a real job a day in his life.
He's an attorney.
He associates with people like Sharpton and the Rev. Wright and outspoken terrorists like Bill Ayers.
He's in bed with unions.
He uses the govn to take over private businesses (banks and car companies).
He insults our allies while bowing to our enemies (literally and figurativly).
He has no class.
And I could go on and on.
Recent speculation is that prices are impacting demand. They're dropping.
There is no shortage of available oil Varus. Increasing drilling in the US won't accomplish anything but keeping the masses dumb and happy and hooked on cheap, dirty oil. This isn't the first time this has happened, and it surely won't be the last before our energy options are more diverse.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
You're really not persuading anyone, gbaji. Your comeback is seriously "Oh sure, so you can say anything is unpopular and offlimits?" Why not just come out and say "The Pledge means sh*t, because we can spin it at will!" I mean, that's what you're doing. There's already been mentions in this thread showing that Planned Parenthood IS popular... I guess you're saying that if the Republicans don't like it, it must be unpopular (to turn your own phrasing around on you)?
Goodness, it must be tough having to constantly lie to yourself
You and Jon Kyl would be good friends, though - you seem so convinced! Sorry, I owe you a bit of an answer, since you did try to respond accurately:
Quote:
They were trying to put those riders into the budget for the remaining year, not just for a week. The Dems balked, so the GOP proposed an alternative which would pay out military paychecks for a week in return for passing the riders. I've already explained why they proposed this. It was specifically about showing which thing the Dems cared about more, paychecks for the military or funding for planned parenthood. As you say, this was a one week thing anyway, so it was never intended to be a full solution for anything.
Why do *you* think they proposed that? Seriously. Stop and think about it for a second.
Why do *you* think they proposed that? Seriously. Stop and think about it for a second.
Let's think...
You say that the riders were added to show that the Democrats cared more about Planned Parenthood and the status of endangered wolves than the military. They attached this to a provision that needed to be passed - knowing full well it would not. In other words, the Republicans knowingly called for must-pass legislation that they knew would be opposed, gambling the pay of our military on the Democrat's social causes.
Why do I think they did it? Because they thought holding the military's pay hostage would force the Democrats into giving in.
And you don't find that a total d*ck move? The Republicans broke their pledge (seriously dude, planned parenthood was just a part of it) by adding these causes because they thought the Democrats would be forced into their agreement. Instead the public at large went "Whaaaa... wtf are they doing?" Their gamble failed.
Stop and think about it for a second. The Democrats are at fault for not getting a budget passed before - I completely agree with that. The Republicans were undoubtedly at fault for threatening a government shut-down in an attempt to force concessions.
Edited, Apr 12th 2011 4:51pm by LockeColeMA
gbaji wrote:
They were trying to put those riders into the budget for the remaining year, not just for a week. The Dems balked, so the GOP proposed an alternative which would pay out military paychecks for a week in return for passing the riders. I've already explained why they proposed this.
To weaken the GOP position? :D
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Seems a bit unfair to just declare anything the other side does as unpopular and thus off limits somehow. Don't you agree?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
LockeColeMA wrote:
Speaking of the GOP lying, the clip of Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) on the 8th about Planned Parenthood and abortion is HILARIOUS. The section on wikipedia:
Quote:
On April 8, 2011, Kyl spoke on the Senate floor and claimed that performing abortions is "well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does." Planned Parenthood responded that 90 percent of its services are preventative, and only 3 percent are abortion-related. A spokesperson for Kyl later claimed the senator’s remark "was not intended to be a factual statement but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions in taxpayer dollars, does subsidize abortions."
He was repeating a statistic (worded poorly to be fair) about the ratio of abortions performed compared to adoptions and pre-natal care. The point is to highlight what the focus on planned parenthood is when it comes to pregnancy care. And in that area, 97.6% of pregnant women who receive care at planned parenthood go there to get an abortion, and only 2.4% receive either prenatal care or adoption assistance.
That's the more relevant figure. Planned parenthood is just counting total "care actions", which can include anything from handing out a pamphlet or a pack of condoms to performing an abortion. The reality is that the Kyl was correct (if poorly worded). In terms of pregnancy care, well over 90% of what planned parenthood "does" is abortions.
Do they do other things? Sure. They do the occasional breast exam and whatnot, but I don't think anyone is under the misconception that abortion isn't the primary business that planned parenthood engages in.
Quote:
Apparently his office also failed to note that federal funding to PP, by law, cannot go to the abortion procedure. Man, it takes guts to blatantly lie on the floor of the Senate 
A law that is commonly and easily skirted. You're playing the old "well that money is for other stuff" game.
If it's such a big deal, and planned parenthood really wants to help women with non-abortion related services, there is absolutely nothing preventing them from spinning off a separate organization, with its own funding and its own identity, which does not do abortions, but which performs all those other services for which it receives funding. Separate the two businesses and the problem goes away, doesn't it?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Apparently his office also failed to note that federal funding to PP, by law, cannot go to the abortion procedure. Man, it takes guts to blatantly lie on the floor of the Senate
A law that is commonly and easily skirted. You're playing the old "well that money is for other stuff" game.
You realize that this argument refers to abortions happening in the same building, right? Since federal funds go to overhead for the building itself, they FUND ABORTIONS! OMG, NO!! It's not like they're buying vaginal vacuums and passing them off as cleaning supplies, dude.
Edit:
Quote:
The reality is that the Kyl was correct (if poorly worded). In terms of pregnancy care, well over 90% of what planned parenthood "does" is abortions.
You realize you're making up what Kyl is saying, right? His own office said his figure was not supposed to be taken as fact.
As for the services, no, I disagree that "abortion is what planned parenthood does." Everyone I've ever known who's gone to PP went for
A) Condoms
B) Birth Control
C) STI testing
Luckily, their own reporting system verifies this, so the facts happen to be on my anecdote's side, not yours
Quote:
If it's such a big deal, and planned parenthood really wants to help women with non-abortion related services, there is absolutely nothing preventing them from spinning off a separate organization, with its own funding and its own identity, which does not do abortions, but which performs all those other services for which it receives funding. Separate the two businesses and the problem goes away, doesn't it?
The point is it isn't a big deal except for people who need a villain. Why should they create a separate organization when everything they're doing is legal?
Edited, Apr 12th 2011 4:59pm by LockeColeMA
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They were trying to put those riders into the budget for the remaining year, not just for a week. The Dems balked, so the GOP proposed an alternative which would pay out military paychecks for a week in return for passing the riders. I've already explained why they proposed this.
To weaken the GOP position? :D
That is the spin most of the media is desperately putting on this. Shocking! Oh wait, it's really not.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 9
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (9)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Barack Obama will win the 2012 election
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC