Well then you wouldn't be talking about me... as you well know.Quote:
But, I DO know that somebody who DENIES the existence of evolution ISN'T the guy to get ANY scientific information from.
|
Well then you wouldn't be talking about me... as you well know.Quote:
But, I DO know that somebody who DENIES the existence of evolution ISN'T the guy to get ANY scientific information from.
Don't you think it's a bit irrelevant? We apparently quit spending on that a couple of decades ago. I'll stick to cutting current wasteful spending.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Apparently not: Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Debt limitQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello again, righty's:Quote:
The goal of the study was to understand the "real individual-level consequences of living in a penis-centered society".
The above from a story in FOX.
In fact, the study is GOOD science. I don't expect you to agree. The lesson here, is that religion should NOT be a factor when determining whether a field of study ought to be engaged in. If it were, I suppose we'd all still believe the earth was flat.
You're not going to tell me, are you, that your anti-gay bias doesn't stem from your religious beliefs?
Excon
Even if I conceded that it was good science ;why should I as a taxpayer fund it ? Does the Levithian now have to fund every science project someone imagines ?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Not at all.. Just the good ones.
What? You don't want the government involved in science? Really? You don't like Nasa? You don't like GPS? You don't think science has national security implications? DUDE!
Now, I don't know if studying gay men helps our country or not. But, I would NOT reject it out of hand simply based on the scary word "gay".
excon
I have no idea how you could divine from my comments that I oppose ALL science reseach from my comments .Quote:
What? You don't want the government involved in science? Really? You don't like Nasa? You don't like GPS? You don't think science has national security implications? DUDE!
Another false premise that I'll not respond to...Quote:
Now, I don't know if studying gay men helps our country or not. But, I would NOT reject it out of hand simply based on the scary word "gay".
When this funding began is irrelevant, the funding is slated to be continued at least until 2013 which makes it current wasteful spending.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
P.S. The original article I linked to already revealed it began in 2006 in paragraph 2 so your post was old news anyway.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Ok, I'm willing to let you explain why you initially wrote that the study was a waste of money. I suggest it was the mention of "gay", or it could have been "penis". I don't know. What's the difference? Looks to me like whatever turned you off about it stems from your religious beliefs. No?
excon
You answered the question yourself . I don't think it's a national concern . If they were measuring straight men's weeners I'd think the same way... thus the false premise that my concern is religious based or biggoted.
Ah so you think military wasteful spending no longer happens then. Interesting concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Concluding that my noting a long abandoned program as being irrelevant to current spending equates to me thinking "military wasteful spending no longer happens", is absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I'm pretty sure they are still making ships.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Wonder how many people with torches we could employ to scrap all that junk, or how much we could get for ALL our junk at a garage sale? Or move congress to a sports stadium, sell beer, have a half time show, and watch the fools fight? The options are endless.
Or open a casino in the Chicago suburbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
With full house, lots of rolling at the Rivers Casino - Chicago Sun-Times
Well casinos are a proven revenue earner for their area. They sometimes bring in some side effects though.
Indeed and some governments have not been slow to exploit gambling as a revenue source. In my own case my state has reaped large scale revenues from both taxing gambling and providing a vehicle for it through state run lotteries and a totalisator as well as licensed clubs. The side effect casinos bring is tourism but allowing the masses to gamble enmasse often brings povertyQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Of course they are, I never said they weren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You presented 2 specific ships as an example of wasteful spending, and it was - was being the operative word here. We apparently stopped spending on THOSE TWO SPECIFIC SHIPS in 1993 when we terminated the contract. We can't cut spending on a project that has long been abandoned, but then I've already said that AND I've already agreed we can cut defense spending.
The Majority Leader of the Senate, a body with a Democratic majority that hasn't put out a budget resolution in 800 days, is upset. His complaint is that the House - which has sent the Ryan plan and Cut, Cap and Balance to the Senate - is taking the weekend off.
What exactly is he expecting they do this weekend seeing as how they've passed their proposal? Get to work Harry, you've had 800 days and what have you done?
Update: Now I know why Dirty Harry wants them to work this weekend, as of yesterday he didn't even realize the House had passed their plan. He actually said yesterday he was waiting on the House to show them the "path forward."
Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio responded and told him the House's position is "crystal clear."Quote:
“I'm at a point where I'm saying we need to hear from the House of Representatives,” Reid said from the Senate floor. “We have a plan to go forward over here. But until we hear from the House of Representatives, really our, all of our work here would be for naught.
"I await the word from the Speaker," Reid said.
I guess he forgot. Waiting on you, Harry.Quote:
"In case Sen. Reid didn't notice, a bipartisan 'Gang of 234' just sent him the way forward. It's called the 'Cut, Cap, and Balance Act'
The Dems have offered no budgets . The President's budget was voted down unanimously .
The House Republicans passed a budget and passed CCB (although I have concerns about a Balanced Budget Amendment ) .
The record is clear... the Dems have tried to skate this issue and will try to blame the Repubics for any consequences.
To bad the HOUSE budget is worse, a lot worse than NO budget at all. And yes, people are starting to see that repubs, and Grover, are about big business, and need a small government to do as they please, the way they please.
Its obvious where the attack on the middle class, unions, old people, poor, and minorities is coming from. So called job creators trying to starve the beast.
I just received an interesting email --
Corporate Tax Holiday in Debt Ceiling Deal: Where's the Uproar? | Rolling Stone Politics | Taibblog | Matt Taibbi on Politics and the Economy
It's hilarious . The European countries were spending like drunken Democrats since the end of WWII... They developed the Levitian travesty that the left here is trying to duplicate.
Now ,even though their military outlays are puny ,they still find themselves on the verge of collapse. Italy as an example is in debt to the tune of 120 percent of GDP . And what are they going to do about it ? They are going on austerity . They have no choice. For the most part ,the austerity is layoffs and reductions in entitlements .
Your one trick pony of taxing the few and no entitlement cuts will not get it done. The US debt will exceed 100% of GDP by 2015 . A line has to be drawn on spending somewhere. Let's start small. Bring spending levels back to 2008 before TARP and the bucket list giveaway .
There will be cuts, but not with a butcher knife, but with a scalpel, and a very balanced approach that everyone contributes too. And forget comparing country states in Europe to the USA, because you forget we built them in the first place.
JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, there has to be some actual work done to make demand, money, and profits, otherwise you have a crap shoot, like Wall Street, who started this whole thing in the first place.
The American people are sold on what Dingy Harry calls the worst legislation in the history of America, by a 2-1 margin according to a CNN poll. You wouldn't know it by CNN's take with a headline like "CNN Poll: Strong partisan divide on debt ceiling."
Thirteen paragraphs into the article we learn that the partisanship isn't quite so partisan:
The opinion on Cut, Cap and Balance?Quote:
Republicans like the "cut, cap, and balance" approach to the debt ceiling, as do Democrats and independents. Most Americans support a balanced budget amendment, and most, but not as many, think an amendment is necessary to get federal spending under control. A balanced budget amendment passed the House earlier this week, but a vote in the Senate is expected to fail.
Reid may think balancing the budget while cutting spending is the worst possible scenario, but the American people are SOLD on it.Quote:
In another proposal, Congress would raise the debt ceiling only if a balanced budget amendment were passed by both houses of Congress and substantial spending cuts and caps on future spending were approved. Would you favor or oppose this proposal?
July 18-20 2011
Favor 66%
Oppose 33%
No opinion 1%
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You mean, Crash, Slash and Burn?
Of course, when you LIE about a particular piece of legislation, the people can be persuaded... But, when you look DEEPER into the bill, you find that it's EXTRAORDINARILY bad. Here's just ONE part.. Right now, from a Constitutional perspective, congress can raise money if it needs to, by a majority vote. This law changes it to a 2/3rd's vote.
On the surface, that might sound nice. But if you dwell upon it, it's a recipe for disaster, because a 2/3rd's vote will NEVER happen... That means the country will be hamstrung. Think how difficult your life would be if you couldn't borrow. Think how difficult it will be if the country can't either... That'll mean no more war, of course... Some might like that, but it would put the country into danger. In fact, it would DESTROY us.
excon
The devil is in the details, and while it could stand to be scrutinized and debated, the immediate concern is the debt ceiling. Everyone agrees on raising it, not debating it, too late for that.
Even republican conservative governors are starting to realize, that the consequences of NOT raising it quickly, are a disaster for their own states credit, like in Virginia, and several other states.
Time for talk and politics is over, lets vote, and go from there. But leave it to repubs to keep changing the rules, in an effort to get what they want, and not give a darn thing in return, not even a JOB!!
I haven't lied about it, I was just reporting. I personally think requiring a 2/3 vote to raise my taxes is a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Obama wants you to keep your current tax rate, you are in the middle class aren't you? Its your repubs who keep saying he wants to raise taxes on everybody, and that's a lie, just 1% who sucked all the money from the economy. They also say that a tax raise will hurt job creation, another lie, because their wealth doesn't depend on making a job for you. They have other options (move to cheaper countries) so they are no longer job creators are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I haven't said anything about raising taxes on everyone so who's telling the lie? What difference does it make whose taxes are being raised, I find a 2/3 vote to do so is still a good thing.
I just don't get why anyone wants to punish people for success. That's just stupid to me, and the ideologue in the White House doesn't care if raising taxes is counterproductive, he thinks raising taxes on those making over $200,000 is "fair" because its' better to him to “spread the wealth around.”
Nonsense, there is nothing fair about taking from one to give to another.
Republicans are saying that. Boehner said it.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Why punish me and take away or reduce part of my income (S.S.) -- i.e. "there is nothing fair about taking from one to give to another" who has much, much more than I do?Quote:
I just don't get why anyone wants to punish people for success.
Shared sacrifice has nothing to do with being punished at all. That's a misconception. Its all about EVERYONE getting some skin in the game to dig us out the ditch, one caused by a recession, that was caused by the rich so called job creators. Heck that's fair, you bail them out they bail you out.
Or at least stop calling them JOB CREATORS. You do your part they do theirs. That's NOT fair to YOU?
Everyone getting some skin in the game? OK, get all those welfare deadbeats off their a$$es and put them to work doing something. Pulling weeds along the highway works for me.
"Shared sacrifice" is just an Orwellian term meaning "soak the rich" and personally, I'm sick of Democrats using that term along with "balanced approach," meaning "raise the ceiling, soak the rich, spend trillions more" and then rinse and repeat. NO! We are not buying it.
First you have to separate the deadbeats from the ones that want a JOB, but can't get one, and the disabled who can't work, and then find some governor who will pay them to pull weeds along the highway.Quote:
QUOTE by speechlesstx;
Everyone getting some skin in the game? OK, get all those welfare deadbeats off their a$$es and put them to work doing something. Pulling weeds along the highway works for me.
FACT-To even qualify for welfare, you have to earn at less than 33% above the poverty level, or be disabled, or be willing to take a job, IF they have one available.
FACT-More than half the welfare recipients are children, and the rest are disabled adults, or the working poor.
FACT-Seen the unemployed figures lately?
FACT-Wages have been stagnant for the middle class for more than a decade, while prices, corporate profits, have risen three fold. AND NO TAXES PAID.Quote:
"Shared sacrifice" is just an Orwellian term meaning "soak the rich" and personally, I'm sick of Democrats using that term along with "balanced approach," meaning "raise the ceiling, soak the rich, spend trillions more" and then rinse and repeat. NO! We are not buying it.
FACTS-NO JOBS!!
FACT-Whether a debt reduction or tax cut or whatever is necessary or not, I agree it is, that has nothing at all to do with raising the debt ceiling.
MY OPINION-I am sick of repubs creating a crisis to extort what they want. And they spend as many trillions on what they want as Democrats, and that's a fact.
FACT-I've already made those distinctions numerous times.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Rahm Emmanuel: "Never let a serious crisis go to waste."Quote:
MY OPINION-I am sick of repubs creating a crisis to extort what they want. And they spend as many trillions on what they want as Democrats, and that's a fact.
Alrighty, the Senate has voted down the House plan as expected, 51-46. On to the Democratic plan. Wait, there isn't one.
Why are Senators taking the weekend off if it was irresponsible for the House to do so according to Dirty Harry, especially since the Democrat-controlled Senate has proposed NOTHING? I thought this was a crisis for crying out loud.
It is a crisis, that requires a vote to pay for past bills, not new spending, deficit reduction, or any other plans from anybody.
The BIG DEAL can come later. Now about those JOBS!!
Dude, the Senate hasn't passed a budget resolution as required by law for two years. TWO years. The Democratic-controlled House last year failed to pass a budget as required by the constitution. The president has ignored his own commission's conclusions for months.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Obama vowed unemployment wouldn't go above 8 percent. He spent hundreds of billions of dollars on "shovel ready" jobs that he JOKED about not being "shovel ready." We're a year past "recovery summer" and things look about the same. No wait, mass layoffs are on the upswing. That's "change" for you.
Some crisis managers these Democrats.
There ARE shovel-ready jobs in this state, but the state never released all the money they were given. The banks are still hoarding the money they were given.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Reminds me of the guy who was desperately poor and needed money to get his dog spayed. He used the money I gave him to get a tattoo.
You're comparing tattoo money to a $787 billion spending spree?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:13 PM. |