Is there anything that this government does, and is paid for by borrowing, that you would object to? Should congress ever refuse to pay for "investments" proposed by the Administration?
Will Democrats shutdown the Government or will
- Thread starter EERs 3:16
- Start date
Right, stupid. But you can't pass a budget with only the 51 votes from the Senate as you proclaimed above.
So, you would need 218 votes from the House, not just 51 from the Senate.
See how easy it is to figure **** out when you actually have a clue what you're talking about?
Do you have to be an ******* all your life. I have explained the 51 votes in the Senate. No one else offers an objection. If you don't understand, there is nothing I can do for you.
I'm only an ******* to you, because you are such a constant *******. I use a phrase metaphorically and you take me literally and call me a liar. You say **** that isn't accurate and call me stupid for saying it isn't accurate.
So, yes, I'll be an ******* to you unless/until you decide you want to have civil discourse.
And while you're calling me all of those names and calling me an "******* all your life", remember that I'm pretty sure I'm the ONLY one on this board offering condolences for the passing of your wife, and also apologized to you for making an uncalled for personal attack.
There is no way I'll ever be able to compete with you as far as being an ******* is concerned, you've got over 30 more years experience on me.
While you call people stupid you post **** like this. Hey genius, I'll say it again until maybe you'll understand. Budget issue doesn't only require 51 votes.
And if you're talking only about THIS budget issue, you're still wrong.
Really? No one else offers an objection?
Seems CountryRoads offered an objection as well. So, you're not only stupid and an *******, you're a liar too.
Idiot, there is no question about the majority in the House and the rule is 51% for passage. Not so with 51% in Senate. Although Repubs have majority, it requires 60% to move on to vote in that house. 51 or 51%, whichever, is not sufficient to stop filibuster there. But for matters relating to budget, 51% is adequate. I just don't believe you are that stupid, but if you insist, I will have to go along and agree that you are really as dense as you are portraying yourself.
Don't tell me that I am wrong, tell me where I am wrong. House has majority Repub. There is no question there(hopefully). The Senate has majority Repub, but simple majority is not sufficient there. 60 votes, 3/5 of 100 is required - not simple majority as in House. That cannot be complicated, even for a dumb *** of your caliber. Move on.
And, you are a stupid Son-of-a-*****, which is not a great revelation. Move on.
Don't be a chicken ****. If you have to apologize for saying something, don't say it in the first place and the apology is unnecessary. If you are going to insist that you are going to run your mouth, take ownership and move on.
A very good rule/lesson for the future, only make honest comments about things and people and you will never be put in position that you have to apologize. Of course an apology is always nice for going to extremes, but never for speaking untruth that should have been avoided to start with.
Civil discourse is always preferred by me. You and I seem to have a problem with ongoing conversation. As soon as a name is offered or a derogatory descriptive adjective is used, I seem to have to reply with a harsher word.
You can look back through every one of our exchanges and see if you can find where I initiated a personal attack. To the best of my knowledge it has never happened. I used a metaphor and you immediately jumped in with liar and stupid and whatnot, as you always do, and not just to me, but many other people as well.
So, your assertion that civil discourse is your preference is another example of you being a liar. Or maybe just too stupid to understand what civil discourse actually means. I'm gonna go with both.
Idiot. You didn't say 51%.
Country roads gave the vote tally for the House and you responded that it only took 51 for budget.
Maybe what you meant was 51%? But that's not what you said.
If you were smart enough to correctly articulate your stance, then a lot of this would be avoided. Instead, you can't correctly articulate your stance and then go batshit with all the personal attacks when somebody counters you. And you aren't smart enough to see that it was all your fault in the first place for not being clear on what you were saying.
So, you are going to be an ******* 'til the bitter end. I offer a way to reconcile and you start with "too stupid". Not sure you are mature enough to engage in a discussion.
Your attempt at reconciliation was with a lie ... maturity? Look in the mirror. Being old doesn't mean you're mature. I haven't seen anybody else on this board call people son-of-a-*****, liar, stupid, dense, etc. etc. more than you do, so to try to suggest that others aren't mature enough to engage in discussion is the height of hypocrisy.
You don't find this as confrontational? You don't find this as stupid? Am I a liar as you suggest that someone should state. Why did you want to get into this so deeply Over the use of "tail"? Tail and *** have never been used interchangeably in your world?
Why was this such an issue with you? After that, you insisted on repeating 51, WHY? I continued to explain the reference. And you were like a broken record. I explain the function of congress and the two houses and the numbers in each. You don't offer a comment on that and go back to the 51. It was obvious you were never going to be serious, and then repeat the 51.
My fault for entertaining, but I had to offer a parting shot about your stupidity and gene pool.
Don't deny I do respond to name calling with a bit more zest. Will probably continue to do so when someone else initiates it.
Yes. I object strongly to the government throwing away almost $1 trillion on **** like a fighter jet that so far hasn't flown one mission and probably never will, while members of Congress keep shoveling money to their defense industry overlords for such boondoggles, all with the justification that such money pits promote American jobs, but people in uniform and veterans in need of health care "are too costly." I also object to the government shoveling cash to Wall Street financiers to make sure they didn't lose any money in the meltdown that they caused. I also object to the government subsidizing oil companies that are making profits larger than the GDP of some countries. To answer your other question, Congress has every opportunity to object to spending proposed by the president -- that's how the budget process works, the president proposes and Congress votes yes or no.
Excellent response. One thing that you neglected was the "new investments". One thing that I support is the national defense that is demanded in the Constitution. There are apparent excesses, but how do they get funded in the budget process? Is there a Constitutional requirement that the government provide jobs?
"Congress has every opportunity" really? What happens when they don't agree? Does that not cause government shutdowns? Did you not state that it only happens with Repubs holding majority? Wonder how that works?
This is a very difficult subject to reconcile. The budget is pretty simple process. It has gotten a hell of a lot complicated, and I am not sure many in congress understand the mechanics, and I would say few , if any on this board can follow it.
It was an issue because you spoke metaphorically. When I did the same, you said I was a liar because what I said didn't literally happen. That's why I pointed out that nobody has called you a liar yet, because you had called me a liar for the same practice.
Was that confrontational? Yes. But it was also in response to you calling me a liar and stupid about a dozen times prior to that in the previous thread.
The 51 was only an issue when you started calling people stupid for countering your claim, which was incorrect as originally stated.
Then you are too stupid or senile to remember what you've said to whom and to put 2 and 2 together regarding what they are responding to. It's happened from day 1 with you with my posts. I've initiated nothing with you. I said that Lindsey Graham shouldn't be the head of a technology committee if he doesn't even use email. You misunderstood and started the senseless bickering on the basis that I was saying that he wasn't qualified to be president because he didn't email, which wasn't anywhere close to what I ever said.
From that point on, it has been a never ending string of confrontations with you, mostly because you are too stupid to understand and retain what was being said and you start the name calling and whatnot. Generally, the whole reason for your angst in the first place is because you totally misunderstand something in the first place .... but everybody else is stupid or an *******.
Defense excesses get funded because nobody in either party wants to be painted as "soft" on defense. Almost half of our non-mandatory spending is on defense, and we spend as much on the Pentagon than the next 9 countries combined.
The budget process is only difficult nowadays because one house or the other keeps passing **** -- usually completely ideologically symbolic **** like the ACA or Planned Parenthood -- that they know won't pass in the other house, and refuse to budge no matter how many times the other house votes down their symbolic ****.. You sort of expect that when Congress is divided but you could also expect that they'd get together like reasonable people and work through their differences. I'm not sure when that changed.
I'll admit I'm not current on all the "new investments" you refer to. Give me some examples and I'll tell you where I stand.
I did not call everybody a stupid *******, just you and two more. Is that metaphorical too?
And, I am senile? You started something on another post and I responded to you. Now, you are following my every post to see if you can make a metaphorical comment that is chicken ****. Do you ever let it rest? You assume you have the answer to everything, and it ain't so as has been pointed out by many.
Now, at this point , you can bite my *** you little *******.
If we are going to be a/the leading nation, we have to have the mite to enforce it. I don't disagree that there are excess, IMO. What good is my opinion as compared to combat leadership. I am going to have to defer to those with the knowledge.
I remember a time when we allowed weak little nations to pull **** on us and we would destroy and rebuild or just walk away without response. We have seen many times when we back away and someone not as nice fills the void. National defense is a constitutional requirement. Obamacare and PP are not. I don't think you admit how we were blessed with Obamacare. I don't think it survives - when all costs become known. The Dems have simply bought votes with taxpayer money? or credit?
I am not totally convinced that you are unaware of the "investments" to which I refer. But if you want a little one, try education. There is no limit what they will not "invest" in an area that should be under fed control. How about retraining those who lost a job?
Time for other duties.
Once again you show that you can't understand anything. Not even that you're being played like a fiddle.
"you can bite my *** you little *******" .... maturity at its finest.
It's so easy to expose your character for what it is.
Damn. I am just absolutely crushed that you are exposing me. Whatever should I do?
"played like a fiddle", and you just don't have the mental capacity to understand. All I have to do is give you enough rope. Many times I have stated that this is my entertainment for daytime. I can have civil conversations, or light up some dumb *** and you are the picture postcard of a dumb ***.
You actually called me an ***-hole. I am not just an ***-hole, I am a revolving-*******. Every way you turn me I am an *******. I still think we should close this one. Others are going to correctly say that we are boring. I really hate to infringe on other's recreation time when I am just entertaining myself.
And the character being exposed by you is just a poor, crippled, elderly man who has recently become a widower after 52 years of marriage. You are having frequent enjoyment of intentionally setting me off. This is the only way I have of passing the day. And you talk about my character? You certainly do have balls, but that character is lacking. HEHE.
Last edited:
You have a strange way of entertaining yourself. Proving over and over that you are an *******, a liar and a hypocrite?
So easy to spin you up.
Hey dumbass ... how many digits are on a MENSA membership number? Bet you don't know.
I don't have a dog in the Obamacare fight since I have guaranteed health care -- at least for now -- as a military retiree. Like many opposed to the way it has been implemented, I am pissed that they mucked around with people's coverage after saying they wouldn't.
And it occurred to me that you might bring up the education spending they want. I'll go on record as opposed to it. A taxpayer funded college education is not a right. I borrowed to help pay for my degree and I paid it off with the only government help being the paycheck I got every two weeks from Uncle Sam in return for wearing the uniform. If I had ended up working for a newspaper someplace I still would have had to pay them off with no government help. I'm also opposed on a philosophical basis to the proposal about universal preschool and Head Start. Four and five-year-olds don't need to be in school 8 hours a day.
I am not a member, so it has no value to me. No, you stupid son-of-a-***** I told you just an hour or two ago that I am a revolving *******. And you are getting to be terribly boring. Call me a hypocrite and you criticize what I find entertaining while you spend the entire day participating in the activity that entertains me. I do not find that as a strong point for an honorable man. So I guess it does fit you after all.
I find the entirety of Obamacare objectionable starting with the original purpose. Who remembers that it was going to cover everyone at a lower cost? Who cares that there are 40,000,000+ still without insurance , and the cost is still undetermined, but it is already more costly and there is still a good bit of costs to come later. I seem to have pretty good coverage with medicare as principle and secondary that picks up the balance except for some out of pocket for meds. Nobody can give me the coverage I have at the current cost and not go broke.
Probably has had more negative impact on the economy due to uncertainty associated with Obamacare. And most other things that it provides in between.
Oh, how could a person as sophisticated as you attempt to project, be so cruel to an old man just because he pisses on himself occasionally - and on the likes of you all day long? Hehe.
LOL!!!!!
Spinoff businesses are a huge part of the reason our budget is out of control. Pardon me if I don't complain if they miss a week of work.
Typical. He wasn't just talking about contractors, he was talking about businesses where government employees spend their money when they're working.
There are many places where entire counties would lose business after business after business if the government jobs weren't there. Everything from fast food franchise owners, to doctors, to building contractors, to cleaning services, gas stations, banks, etc.
You are? I have lost all use for the organization if so. Tell me you are and I will laugh my *** off.
Lose all use for an organization that wouldn't have you? Sounds like sour grapes.