Yes they could eat hamburger and not feel it at all
|
Yes they could eat hamburger and not feel it at all
Yes a pretty picture,
One day when or more like IF I feel more financially secure than I have for the last few years... on my birthday maybe I will.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
One thing that can be said for never having experienced a really, REALLY great steak... is that you won't be missing it when you have to settle for far less.
Pizza is like that for me... having lived in Italy long enough to have had some REALLY great pizza fairly frequently... nothing I've had on this side of the big pond has really met that standard.
Actually rumor has it that Barry likes a good hamburger from time to time... its that self proclaimed queen he married that has a problem with that...Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
You know how it is elevation to the peerage goes to the head
No I don't... perhaps you could enlighten us? One thing I am not is elitist.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I wasn't referring to you but to MichelleQuote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Actually, Obama loves chili dogs and Michelle has a weakness for french fries. I think that should be their new WH menu and they can forgo the Bison Wellington.
Now if the two of them and their daughters were piggy-fat and slobby looking with grease spots on the fronts of their clothes, I'd say you have an argument. Isn't there something you absolutely love to eat, but think better of it because it isn't good for you, but still have it once in a while? My downfall is caramel brownies with melty chocolate chips and gooey caramel and pecan halves inside. I bake them only twice a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
My point has nothing to do with cravings. The guy is punishing children which is bad enough, but he refuses to make any personal sacrifices in the process.
I'm sure he eats lots of broccoli and cauliflower (i.e. "personal sacrifice"). If he was photographed eating that, you'd complain that he is a goody two-shoes and is lying about what he really eats and is doing it as a photo op. If inner-city kids satisfied cravings once in a while, but that is not what happens. Fast food is the cheap food and is close to home and easy to get to, so that's what they live on.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I refer to him closing canceling WH tours while living it up on the taxpayer dollar.
Hello again, Steve:
In other words, he has to make the cuts YOU approve of... But, if that's so, why didn't you put those into the law?Quote:
I refer to him closing canceling WH tours while living it up on the taxpayer dollar.
If the right wing snookered Obama INTO the sequester, Obama snookered the right wing by making the cuts HE wants to make.
It's ALL political theater. I think Obama is winning.
Excon
It is political theater but Obama is losing in this act.
Oh, and I'm sure no one thought the President of the United States would be so juvenile as to close the WH for his centerpiece cut - especially after using kids as props for his scarequester campaign.
It's for the children remember?
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politic...0306_wblog.jpg
Nice try dude, but it's the members of congress who ask for the tours formally and they have said we are broke so who pays for the extra security for those tours?
Why are you so hyped up about children not going on a tour but say nothing about the children, poor women, and seniors because of the sequester.
How Would the Sequester Affect Women and Families - iVillage
http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/finan...ffect-elderly/
Thanks for the perfect example of right wing hypocrisy. Congress has had more than a year almost to avoid this sequester, and have done NOTHING! That's where the blame lies.
The scarequester card was already played and you lost.
Your assertion of my defeat is premature. The battle wages on despite your claims of victory.
Name the person who has lost WIC
Hello again, Steve:
You'd think Republicans would want to pay for veteran benefits before tours. Oh wait, the hypocrite right wingers have voted down almost every benefit for vets in the last 15 years.Quote:
It's for the children remember?
I refer to the link I posted above, the American people weren't moved by his doom and gloom. Except for Democrats, they fell for it as expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Speaking of the scarequester that flopped, and especially to those of you who think Republicans were throwing children under the bus, a Maryland congressman skillfully exposed the administration's lies about vaccinations.
The CDC issued a document that said because of the sequester “2,050 fewer children will get vaccines for diseases like measles and whooping cough” in Maryland. Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland quizzed the CDC director on this:
So with Democrat logic, the prez could cut $58 million and all the children will get vaccinated, but under the sequester, it's the GOP's fault that children won't get vaccinated over a cut half that size (which turned out to actually be $18 million, not $30 million).Quote:
HARRIS: Dr. Frieden, I have a great deal of concern about a document that my office got from the White House that talked about the cuts that were going to occur due to Republicans and affecting children. And I’m going to read their quote about vaccines for children. It says, in Maryland, about 2,050 fewer children will receive vaccines due to reduced funding for vaccinations of about $140,000. Did the CDC assist the White House in preparing that estimate?
FRIEDEN: I would have to get back to you on that.
HARRIS: You as the director don’t know if you assisted the White House in preparing an estimate that was distributed to every member of Congress?
FRIEDEN: On that specific number, I would have to — to give you…
HARRIS: OK, let’s — let’s forget the number. Let’s forget the idea of how vaccines for children are going to be affected by the sequester. Is this the vaccine for children program?
FRIEDEN: No, it is not, sir.
HARRIS: Which program is it? Is it 317?
FRIEDEN: Yes, it is, sir.
HARRIS: And what did the president’s budget do to 317, the president’s prospective budget for 2013?
FRIEDEN: The precise numbers I would have to get back to you.
HARRIS: Does $58 million cut sound familiar?
FRIEDEN: Yes.
HARRIS: And what was the sequester cut?
FRIEDEN: Again, the precise numbers…
HARRIS: Does $30 million sound familiar?
FRIEDEN: I would…
HARRIS: You think that’s around ballpark, isn’t it? So actually, the president cut the program twice as much in his budget. Can I assume that the president’s proposed cut would have reduced funding to 4,100 children in Maryland?
FRIEDEN: As per the justification that was published with that, we’ve looked at ways that we can run the program more efficiently by helping state and local health departments recoup dollars, for example, for insured patients.
HARRIS: And you can’t do that under a sequester, but you can do it under the president’s budget? Is that my understanding of your testimony today?
FRIEDEN: I would have to get back to you on that.
HARRIS: So let me get it — let me get it straight. Under the president’s cut of $58 million to the 317 program, you think you could get around that to avoid cutting vaccines to children, but under a sequester, that the president blames on Republicans, you don’t know if you can do that?
FRIEDEN: We’re going to do everything we can to limit any damage that occurs because of the across-the-board cut, but it reduces our flexibility significantly.
HARRIS: Is it your testimony that under the president’s proposed cut of $58 million in his budget to the 317 program you could have avoided cuts to vaccines to children in Maryland?
FRIEDEN: We believe that we could have maintained vaccination levels, yes.
HARRIS: Very interesting. I yield back the balance of my time for now.
Harris said, “When they want to do with less, they can find a way. But when they don’t want to find a way to do with less, they claim they can’t do things in a budget-restricted environment.”
Exactly.
Sounds like the program is overblown anyway, look you have been saying there has been waste so the sequester should deal with that and make for more innovative solutions, so it might be a good thing. The Republicans wanted cuts, they got cuts so stop complaining
So how is that any worse than hollering broke and keeping corporate welfare, and wanting to lower rich guys taxes? Its okay when you guys holler gloom and doom, which you have done for 4(5) straight years, but if we do it, NOW it's a big deal??
So far all these years of an Obama economy haven't led too much, and it's showing in the polls now.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
There's a huge difference between messaging that says we can do better and the Dems constant message of "you're screwed." I mean really, Tal, you say the same thing every day about corporate welfare and making the rich richer, and/or Republicans don't care about women, children and old people - or in other words, "you're screwed."
Regardless, you've validated my earlier point that you guys will excuse any deception as long as it moves your agenda along. Shame on you.
My agenda is simple since you asked, a strong effective government that's for the people by the people, as the biggest priority, against the would be rich guys robbing us through laws that they write and collude to pervert our government in their own interests, which is extracting unhindered, MO" MONEY.
Shame on you for being against that. Can't believe you think its okay to be invaded and robbed by the elites, who keep you poor and beholding to their charity.
Just like for example building a pipeline for private companies that sell the product to the world. I would build it in a minute if THEY took responsibility for the maintanance and upkeep, AND liability for any accidents, which they do NOT.
The business model is broken and corrupt, yet you say give 'em more money. Shame on you for ignoring the facts.
... and yet the oil companies are the bad guys when the government makes seventy five times the profit on every gallon that the people that spend money to find, extract and refine it do after expences?
But the Government who leaches off the productive members of society isn't the bad guy?
Hello smoothy:
Personally, I LIKE roads. You, not so much..Quote:
But the Government who leaches off the productive members of society isn't the bad guy?
Excon
Nice spin, but those poor companies the government leaches off have plenty of profits and even more they hide and don't pay taxes on. Who pays for the pipeline? Who makes the profits?
The only thing better than MO' MONEY is MO' FREE MONEY from the taxpayers. I am sure your company loves you for spewing the company line, and holding the door open while they take the money and RUN!!
At least you are honest and upfront about it, and I can respect that!
Who is "gouging" Whom at the Pumps?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
About a peny a gallon profit on a product that goes for over $4.00 is wretched?
And ex... do you believe those excise taxes only go to the roads... like our SSI taxes only go to SSI? You know that MYTHICAL LOCKBOX, that never existed?
So in other words, you're OK defrauding the American people.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
And here I thought you liked building infrastructure.Quote:
Just like for example building a pipeline for private companies that sell the product to the world. I would build it in a minute if THEY took responsibility for the maintanance and upkeep, AND liability for any accidents, which they do NOT.
What part of financial responsibility, and liability are you having a problem with, Tom? Are companies like BP not accountable for the lives, and livelihoods they adversely affected? Was Exxon?
Obama killed more people by accident Jince January than BP has in total the last 29 years.
So let me get this straight. You would prefer that the oil from North Dakota get inefficiently trucked to refineries or travel on a Warren Buffett owned freight line rather than piping it down ? Yeah that's Dems logic.. Did you think that perhaps you charge the companies that are using the pipeline for the service ? That the pipeline is a source of tax revenues ? That tens of thousand of Americans get hired because the pipe line is there ? Maybe that by piping it down there is less of a carbon footprint if that's your concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Of course not . Your only concern is to stick it to the rich guy.
Unless it's their rich guy... Like Buffet or Soros... then they are right behind making THEM richer.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Lots of sour grapes here guys, for the record no problem with building a pipeline but that really isn't the issue is it? The issue is that the oil comes from a place where it is environmentally unfriendly to extract it and there are other sources of oil, so we will just dispense with your strawman arguments that this is about business or employment at any price
Hello again, tom:
I don't know about tal, but I'd prefer they build the pipeline to the ports at BC. They're only going to ship the oil out.Quote:
so let me get this straight. You would prefer that the oil from North Dakota get inefficiently trucked to refineries
Uhhhh.. That's not our oil. We didn't buy it and it's not going to be used for US. I know you thought otherwise, and THAT'S why you shouldn't watch FOX News.
Excon
I guess that's on the new updated version of the DNC talking points after der Fuhers OH-pocalypse predictions where ALL shot down.
Looks whose putting words in other peoples mouths!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Lets not forget the private lands that must be bought at a fair price, and the history of oil companies responding to accidents, DEQ - 2010 Oil Spill/ Kalamazoo River, do I have to post links for Exxon and BP? To name one of many, and to be fair sticking it to rich guys is the last thing on my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Guess you missed something in your zeal to spew right wing talking points. Gues you are excited that CPAC is trotting out its line up of losers and also ran to throw red meat to the starving disolutioned WingNuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Just like for example building a pipeline for private companies that sell the product to the world. I would build it in a minute if THEY took responsibility for the maintanance and upkeep, AND liability for any accidents, which they do NOT.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:05 PM. |