bpwallace49 Posted March 3, 2010 Author Share Posted March 3, 2010 Az is one of the most intelligent posters here at the Huddle. He always brings something of substance to any argument that he chooses to enter into. This particular response seems rather appropriate to the debate as well. And your only response is to insult and dismiss him? Look, we get it. You don't like or agree with Conservative ideas. You seem like if you gave a little effort you might be able to hold an honest conversation on some of these ideas though... but you keep consistently choosing the lame Have to agree here! route instead. Is that who you want to be? Is any response that you disagree with spin? Does someone who consistently espouses Conservative ideas really have to be a mindless spoon fed robot in your world? Or is it possible that people might just promote Conservative ideas, responses and solutions because that's what they actually believe? To sum up savage, do you really think that holding up unemployment benefits is the most efficient and logical way to represent your constituents, many of whom are RELYING on those benefits? This isnt Have to agree here politics or responses. This is a action that wasnt supported by his party, not supported by his constituents, and sure as hell isnt supported by the thousands of unemployed people that desperately rely on these benefits to survive right now. My continued point is why this? Why this issues that directly screws over people? he didnt have a problem defending a 636 billion defense bill, but NOW he has an issue about an unemploymnet extension? the part that no one answers (including Bunning BTW) is why this bill, and why now? While his point is valid, this is a horrible, horrible way to get it across. Savage can you come up with a salient reason why Bunning didnt do this for any other bill he voted on that required federal funding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 So what happened to pay as you go? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Perch the guy admitted he was a lame duck, HIS OWN PARTY doesnt support him, and if you want to make an ideological stand, why screw with people that desperately need that money immediately? It isnt like there are any other bills that he could potentially hold up. I dont care that he has a problem with funding of programs, hell, MOST of us do. But to cherry pick this program (and to have Az defend it) is reprehensible. This is for Americans that lost their jobs last year because of the economy. But I guess we dont want to support them, huh? Odd that Bunning didnt require $636 billion in cuts when was strongly defending an appropriations bill for defense last fall? Where are those cuts to offset? Hypocricy at its finest . . . . . The funds could easily be moved from the ill-advised stimulus bill, or foreign aid. It isn't that hard. We've had problems with funding a lot of stuff. I and other conservatives have constantly asked how the ill-advised stimulus bill; was going to be funded. You bring up the defense bill from last fall, but correct me if I'm wrong, but at that time the congress hadn't passed and Obama hadn't signed pay as you go legislation. Are there rules are aren't there? It is becoming more and more apparent that liberals really care very little for our laws, just look at some of the stuff that has gone down in the last year, 1. Contract law pissed all over to award liberal unions over bondholders who were the senior debt holders. 2. They want to use reconciliation to pass the health care debacle never mind everyone wanting to do it is on record being opposed it when Bush was in office, and one of the authors of the bill, a Democrat by the way, says it was never intended to be used in this manner nor has it ever been used in the manner. 3. Now they want to break a law they just signed. Amazing, just amazing, and you support it. How many times do the rules get bent and broken until we just throw them all out the window. Look there are way to do this that would be really easy. If liberal want to fund this, then they just have to find something to cut. How hard is it to cut something in this bloated government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Savage can you come up with a salient reason why Bunning didnt do this for any other bill he voted on that required federal funding? from the linked article -- "I believe we should pay for it," Bunning said. "I'm trying to make a point to the people of the United States." Bunning has long been something of an outlier, even within his own caucus. Last year, he announced his plans to retire, having received de facto votes of no confidence from most Senate campaign strategists. And now that he's got nothing to lose next November, he's bucking all kinds of pressure from GOP leaders, who argue that Bunning's quixotic stand has done nothing to improve the party's "party of no" image. Pretty much sums it up does'nt it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Because they don't want to Govern, the want to Rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 3. Now they want to break a law they just signed. Amazing, just amazing, and you support it. So is it safe to assume that you support Bunning taking this stand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Keep on spinning Az . . . keep on promoting what the right spoon feeds you . . well done. first of all, first thing I said is that it seems like a stupid move. but then I posted something spelling out the guy's own justification for doing it. some people might actually find that relevant to the discussion. yet rather than refute anything he said, you come at me (who ultimately agrees with you that he's choosing the wrong battle) for posting "spin"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 3, 2010 Author Share Posted March 3, 2010 The funds could easily be moved from the ill-advised stimulus bill, or foreign aid. It isn't that hard. We've had problems with funding a lot of stuff. I and other conservatives have constantly asked how the ill-advised stimulus bill; was going to be funded. You bring up the defense bill from last fall, but correct me if I'm wrong, but at that time the congress hadn't passed and Obama hadn't signed pay as you go legislation. Are there rules are aren't there? How many times do the rules get bent and broken until we just throw them all out the window. Look there are way to do this that would be really easy. If liberal want to fund this, then they just have to find something to cut. How hard is it to cut something in this bloated government. Perch I have NO PROBLEM with taking it from the stimulus. I have no problme with making it pay as you go. I have no problem as long as the damn thing dosnt involve kicking unemployed people when they are down. Dont try and paint this as a Democrat versus Republican issue. this was WIDELY SUPPORTED BY REPUBLICANS, so that dog wont hunt. i cant see any defense of blocking paymnets to unemployed people. I guess that means that the Republicans are rule breakers too then, huh perch? When are you going to get that some issues shouldnt be painted as Republican versus Democrat? That some issues are about Amercians in need, and not just political parties? Jesus Perch you tried painting the couple from Argentina as DEMOCRATS because you didnt even read the article and jumped to a wrong conclusion! Still waiting for a defense of how/why blocking unemploymnet benefits that are set to expire is a good thing. TIA . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Still waiting for a defense of how/why blocking unemploymnet benefits that are set to expire is a good thing. TIA . . . it could make some people try harder to get a job ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 3, 2010 Author Share Posted March 3, 2010 first of all, first thing I said is that it seems like a stupid move. but then I posted something spelling out the guy's own justification for doing it. some people might actually find that relevant to the discussion. yet rather than refute anything he said, you come at me (who ultimately agrees with you that he's choosing the wrong battle) for posting "spin"? Az . . you posted that it "seems like a dumb move" but then you post an article that defends it? I am sorry if I came at you and took your posting of an article defending his actions out of your intended context. Still waiting for anyone to defend how blocking his bill benefits . . .well . . . anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 it could make some people try harder to get a job ... The Quiznos here is hiring. The Best Buy had a sign up as well. Oh wait, there are no $100k jobs for sitting on your ass doing nothing still left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Perch I have NO PROBLEM with taking it from the stimulus. I have no problme with making it pay as you go. I have no problem as long as the damn thing dosnt involve kicking unemployed people when they are down. Dont try and paint this as a Democrat versus Republican issue. this was WIDELY SUPPORTED BY REPUBLICANS, so that dog wont hunt. i cant see any defense of blocking paymnets to unemployed people. I guess that means that the Republicans are rule breakers too then, huh perch? When are you going to get that some issues shouldnt be painted as Republican versus Democrat? That some issues are about Amercians in need, and not just political parties? Jesus Perch you tried painting the couple from Argentina as DEMOCRATS because you didnt even read the article and jumped to a wrong conclusion! Still waiting for a defense of how/why blocking unemploymnet benefits that are set to expire is a good thing. TIA . . . Your kidding I hope. The man said find a way to pay for it without breaking your pay as I go promise, simple as that. Pay for and he is fine with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Oh wait, there are no $100k jobs for sitting on your ass doing nothing still left. from what I can see from being around here during the day lately, those jobs are all taken by Huddlers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 (edited) Az . . you posted that it "seems like a dumb move" but then you post an article that defends it? I am sorry if I came at you and took your posting of an article defending his actions out of your intended context. Still waiting for anyone to defend how blocking his bill benefits . . .well . . . anyone. again, I'm not going to defend it because I think it's the wrong battle. but bunning's perspective is that these benefits SHOULD be extended, they should just have to come out of already appropriated stimulus money, or some other pot, because congress just passed a bill saying it MUST do just that when it wants to spend new money. of course, I don't see you addressing that issue. much easier to just wave your arms and accuse people of spinning. Edited March 3, 2010 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 from what I can see from being around here during the day lately, those jobs are all taken by Huddlers. :hifive: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Perch I have NO PROBLEM with taking it from the stimulus. I have no problme with making it pay as you go. I have no problem as long as the damn thing dosnt involve kicking unemployed people when they are down. Dont try and paint this as a Democrat versus Republican issue. this was WIDELY SUPPORTED BY REPUBLICANS, so that dog wont hunt. i cant see any defense of blocking paymnets to unemployed people. I guess that means that the Republicans are rule breakers too then, huh perch? When are you going to get that some issues shouldnt be painted as Republican versus Democrat? That some issues are about Amercians in need, and not just political parties? Jesus Perch you tried painting the couple from Argentina as DEMOCRATS because you didnt even read the article and jumped to a wrong conclusion! Still waiting for a defense of how/why blocking unemploymnet benefits that are set to expire is a good thing. TIA . . . Who is kicking unemployed Americans? Just find the money somewhere it should be easy. I don't support it because I don't think it is a legitimate role of the federal government, but even if I did, I would think that congress needs to abide by the laws on the books particularly those they just passed. And yes I think the Republicans that voted for it without funding it are rules breakers too, and should find a way to fund it. You are blatantly misrepresenting what I was saying regarding the Argentina couple. I don't know if it because you are too stupid to see that I was comparing it to idiocy of the left claiming Joe Stack was a right wing extremist, or you are deliberately trying to slander me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 5, 2010 Author Share Posted March 5, 2010 You are blatantly misrepresenting what I was saying regarding the Argentina couple. I don't know if it because you are too stupid to see that I was comparing it to idiocy of the left claiming Joe Stack was a right wing extremist, or you are deliberately trying to slander me. Perch . . you brought American political stereotypes into a discussion about a whacko in Argentina . . . . but sure . . . I am trying to slander you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.