Re: NAT: We'll find out Soon Enough

[MINe109]

On Feb 28, 11:44*am, ScottW > wrote:
> If Obama is up to keeping his word on earmarks.
>
> http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/top-democrats-brush-off-the-presi...

Since Fox is still beating this drum, I'll resurrect this thread to
point out that Obama didn't promise to eliminate earmarks, so all of
Scott's contributions are moot.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 14, 3:25 pm, MINe109 > wrote:
> On Feb 28, 11:44 am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > If Obama is up to keeping his word on earmarks.
>
> >http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/top-democrats-brush-off-the-presi...
>
> Since Fox is still beating this drum, I'll resurrect this thread to
> point out that Obama didn't promise to eliminate earmarks, so all of
> Scott's contributions are moot.

2pid's comments on any topic are irrelevant. He is too stupid to have
an opinion that counts. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 15, 11:36*am, ScottW2 > wrote:

> So for your earmark endorsers...how do you justify an 8% *increase in
> funding on top of the increase many department received in the
> stimulus?

So where would you cut defense spending, 2pid? LoL.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Mar 14, 1:25*pm, MINe109 > wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 11:44*am, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > If Obama is up to keeping his word on earmarks.
> >
> > >http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/top-democrats-brush-off-the-presi...
> >
> > Since Fox is still beating this drum, I'll resurrect this thread to
> > point out that Obama didn't promise to eliminate earmarks, so all of
> > Scott's contributions are moot.

<snip several amplifications of Scott's argument>

Thanks. None of that is a promise to eliminate earmarks.

> So for your earmark endorsers...how do you justify an 8% increase in
> funding on top of the increase many department received in the
> stimulus?

It's a start.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Mar 15, 1:19*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Mar 14, 1:25*pm, MINe109 > wrote:
> > > > On Feb 28, 11:44*am, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > > > If Obama is up to keeping his word on earmarks.
> >
> > > > >http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/top-democrats-brush-off-the-presi..
> > > > >.
> >
> > > > Since Fox is still beating this drum, I'll resurrect this thread to
> > > > point out that Obama didn't promise to eliminate earmarks, so all of
> > > > Scott's contributions are moot.
> >
> > <snip several amplifications of Scott's argument>
> >
> > Thanks. None of that is a promise to eliminate earmarks.
>
> I didn't say he did. Actually it was you who claimed that it was up
> to
>
> "Republican Congressmen can set the standard by refusing to create
> earmarks or accept earmarked money in their districts. "
>
> So apparently Obama needs republicans to lead him as he can't even
> keep his own campaign pledges I noted previously.

Move, move, move those goalposts...

> > > So for your earmark endorsers...how do you justify an 8% *increase in
> > > funding on top of the increase many department received in the
> > > stimulus?
> >
> > It's a start.
>
> You certainly have "faith" in government. Do you pray to Uncle Sam
> too?

That would be my right.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Mar 16, 11:29*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Mar 15, 1:19*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 14, 1:25*pm, MINe109 > wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 28, 11:44*am, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > If Obama is up to keeping his word on earmarks.
> >
> > > > > > >http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/top-democrats-brush-off-the-pre
> > > > > > >si..
> > > > > > >.
> >
> > > > > > Since Fox is still beating this drum, I'll resurrect this thread to
> > > > > > point out that Obama didn't promise to eliminate earmarks, so all
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > Scott's contributions are moot.
> >
> > > > <snip several amplifications of Scott's argument>
> >
> > > > Thanks. None of that is a promise to eliminate earmarks.
> >
> > > *I didn't say he did. *Actually it was you who claimed that it was up
> > > to
> >
> > > "Republican Congressmen can set the standard by refusing to create
> > > earmarks or accept earmarked money in their districts. "
> >
> > > So apparently Obama needs republicans to lead him as he can't even
> > > keep his own campaign pledges I noted previously.
> >
> > Move, move, move those goalposts...
>
> Translation <chirp> <chirp>

You changed your position because of your false premise. You're the one
doing the chirping by not owning up.

> Bottom line...Obama did not go line by line through the earmarks and
> vette them
> as promised. He's gonna wait for his next opportunity to keep his
> word.

He doesn't have a line-item veto.

> > > > > So for your earmark endorsers...how do you justify an 8% *increase in
> > > > > funding on top of the increase many department received in the
> > > > > stimulus?
> >
> > > > It's a start.
> >
> > > You certainly have "faith" in government. *Do you pray to Uncle Sam
> > > too?
> >
> > That would be my right.
>
> So is a good 'ol Uncle Sam funeral. Complete with canned piano
> music...you hope.
>
> http://www.co.travis.tx.us/health_human_services/pdfs/indigent_burial_060413.p
> df

I won't be there to care.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 16, 2:41*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:

> *ScottW2 > wrote:

> > *Bottom line...Obama did not go line by line through the earmarks and
> > vette them
> > as promised. *He's gonna wait for his next opportunity to keep his
> > word.
>
> He doesn't have a line-item veto.

I also believe there are more pressing issues. I can just imagine
2pid's response to an "Obama too busy to vet federal budget line-by-
line right now" story on Fox.

Do you find it at all strange that 2pid gets this upset over $7-8
billion (which is down from previous budgets under his beloved
republicans), or over his made-up Pelosi story, yet loses no sleep at
all when hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted at DoD through
pork and earmarks?

And here I thought that 2pid had 'integrity'.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Mar 16, 12:41*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Mar 16, 11:29*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 15, 1:19*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mar 14, 1:25*pm, MINe109 > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Feb 28, 11:44*am, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > If Obama is up to keeping his word on earmarks.
> >
> > > > > > > > >http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/top-democrats-brush-off-the
> > > > > > > > >-pre
> > > > > > > > >si..
> > > > > > > > >.
> >
> > > > > > > > Since Fox is still beating this drum, I'll resurrect this
> > > > > > > > thread to
> > > > > > > > point out that Obama didn't promise to eliminate earmarks, so
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > Scott's contributions are moot.
> >
> > > > > > <snip several amplifications of Scott's argument>
> >
> > > > > > Thanks. None of that is a promise to eliminate earmarks.
> >
> > > > > *I didn't say he did. *Actually it was you who claimed that it was up
> > > > > to
> >
> > > > > "Republican Congressmen can set the standard by refusing to create
> > > > > earmarks or accept earmarked money in their districts. "
> >
> > > > > So apparently Obama needs republicans to lead him as he can't even
> > > > > keep his own campaign pledges I noted previously.
> >
> > > > Move, move, move those goalposts...
> >
> > > *Translation <chirp> <chirp>
> >
> > You changed your position because of your false premise. You're the one
> > doing the chirping by not owning up.
>
> LoL. You complain to me for something you brought up.

Me? You start the thread, I point out your premise is false, you change
the premise.

> Reality TV must drive you crazy.

Non sequitur.

> > > *Bottom line...Obama did not go line by line through the earmarks and
> > > vette them
> > > as promised. *He's gonna wait for his next opportunity to keep his
> > > word.
> >
> > He doesn't have a line-item veto.
>
> He should show some presidential huevos and set up that case in
> Supreme Court.

The Congress is the place to go.

> > > > > > > So for your earmark endorsers...how do you justify an 8%
> > > > > > > *increase in
> > > > > > > funding on top of the increase many department received in the
> > > > > > > stimulus?
> >
> > > > > > It's a start.
> >
> > > > > You certainly have "faith" in government. *Do you pray to Uncle Sam
> > > > > too?
> >
> > > > That would be my right.
> >
> > > *So is a good 'ol Uncle Sam funeral. *Complete with canned piano
> > > music...you hope.
> >
> > >http://www.co.travis.tx.us/health_human_services/pdfs/indigent_burial...
> > > df
> >
> > I won't be there to care.
>
> You'll be there, you just won't care.

No, I won't.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 17, 3:36*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Mar 16, 12:41*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:

> > > > > "Republican Congressmen can set the standard by refusing to create
> > > > > earmarks or accept earmarked money in their districts. "
>
> > > > > So apparently Obama needs republicans to lead him as he can't even
> > > > > keep his own campaign pledges I noted previously.
>
> > > > Move, move, move those goalposts...
>
> > > *Translation <chirp> <chirp>
>
> > You changed your position because of your false premise. You're the one
> > doing the chirping by not owning up.
>
> *LoL. * You complain to me for something you brought up.
> *Reality TV must drive you crazy.

LoL. You really are a moron.

> > > *Bottom line...Obama did not go line by line through the earmarks and
> > > vette them
> > > as promised. *He's gonna wait for his next opportunity to keep his
> > > word.
>
> > He doesn't have a line-item veto.
>
> *He should show some presidential huevos and set up that case in
> Supreme Court.

It's already been there, done that. Duh.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp062698.htm

Imbecile.