OOTB's Political Thread . ..

[gunslingerdick]

It is amazing how many times the democrats just make up stuff and the republicans have to spend time proving it was made up stuff. Imagine how much they could get done if the republicans didnt have to waste time on the democrats lies.

Well, we differ there a little. I don't want anything done by the government. The less done, the better. Except, the pendulum has swung way too far to the left. So I'm in favor of a republican controlled Congress (and eventually WH) to rectify some of the absurdities the Dems have rammed through over the past few years. But after that, I'm happy for gridlock to prevent much movement at all.

We are all better when the government does less.

 

[gunslingerdick]

You were mocking me? I wasn't aware.

You know, that running joke I had about your dad running out on you and mom? C'mon, you haven't forgotten already have you? And then you had to correct me that your dad was supposedly a stand up, family man kind of guy. And then I told you that my other theory was that you were raised by teen dykes? This just happened yesterday, silly.

Anyway, yes, I was mocking you. It probably happens so often that it's become white noise to you. My bad. I'll make my jokes hit a little harder in the future so you'll definitely know when I'm mocking you.

 

[blazers]

Even if nothing at all happened, any good process is is always trying to improve. I mean, maybe not in the convenience store world but even businesses that are making more money than ever always seek to improve. If you're standing still, you're backing up.

it would be nice if this line of thinking could be applied to gun violence, climate change, healthcare, education, environment.

 

[gunslingerdick]

it would be nice if this line of thinking could be applied to gun violence, climate change, healthcare, education, environment.

It can't.

Your suggestions cost tons of money. Mine cost less money.

 

[uncfootball-]

it would be nice if this line of thinking could be applied to gun violence, climate change, healthcare, education, environment.

No one is standing still on any of that. Wake up.

 

[bluetoe]

Good thing they didn't pass the PACT Act. Those veterans don't deserve extended healthcare. American government never saw a war they didn't love and never saw a veteran they didn't love to fvck over. Jon Stewart nailed it.

Jon Stewart didn't nail shit. Jon Stewart is playing politics or is somehow oblivious to the actualities of politics. AS ALWAYS, when you look into it you'll find that there is a money reason sneakily attached to any worthwhile bill that Republicans reject. And that reason is usually either a spending grab by democrats or some unacceptable clause that allows them to scream 'they hate veterans' or whatever a bill pertains to.

In this case, and I admit I didn't delve into it once I found the objection, it was a separate deal that in part put the wrench into the works. I couldn't find what I had the other day but I found this reference to it, as well as the money objection in the bill itself. Notice how far into the article this is buried.

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/senate-republicans-block-veterans-toxic-exposure-bill/

"Instead, the bill failed a procedural vote when 41 Senate Republicans voted against it, denying the legislation the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. The bill’s defeat came after news of Schumer’s deal with Manchin broke, but Republicans told the Washington Post that their objection to the PACT Act has to do with money.

Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, of Pennsylvania, has been the PACT Act’s chief opponent. He has argued that the legislation has a provision that would move $400 billion earmarked for veterans healthcare into mandatory spending, which passes every year without any action from Congress. Toomey claims that move would allow lawmakers to spend the same amount of money in discretionary spending, which is appropriated by Congress each year.

Concerned Veterans for America, a conservative veterans group, said they understood why Senate Republicans objected to the PACT Act as the legislation is currently written, said Marine veteran John Byrnes, CVA’s director of education.

“CVA understands the hesitation of Republican senators to advance the current version of the PACT Act, given that it would mean expanding the number of veterans eligible for VA healthcare at a time when The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is struggling to provide timely quality care and to be transparent about current wait times for care,” Byrnes said in a statement to Task & Purpose. “There are legitimate concerns about continuing to expand VA spending and reclassify it as mandatory.” "

what's funny to me is how you harp non-stop about how it's all just politics, but when you decide to get in the middle of actual politicking by dems, all of a sudden Jon Stewart deserves a Nobel prize just for being a liberal.

It's also funny how someone who wants so badly to come off as smarter than everyone else can take a few well put together words by someone known for having that ability, and swallow it hook, line, and sinker just like your average mullet.

 

[bluetoe]

What has happened that makes you think security needs to be strengthen?

not a thing, Rip. Go back to sleep now.

 

[Heels Noir]

In this case, and I admit I didn't delve into it once I found the objection, blah, blah, blah . . .

Care to explain why 25 Republican Senators first voted in favor of the PACT Act, but then reversed their vote Wednesday once news broke of the agreement between Chuck Schumer and Joe Manchin that will allow Democrats to pass new spending on the climate and healthcare without any Republican votes?

 

[bluetoe]

It is amazing how many times the democrats just make up stuff and the republicans have to spend time proving it was made up stuff. Imagine how much they could get done if the republicans didnt have to waste time on the democrats lies.

lol, this is @strummingram in a nutshell. Make shit up, and when it's countered, mock the effort to set the record straight. Just an aside, sorry.

With the dems, it isn't mocking but a purposeful strategy of putting Republicans in a position of defending something that they aren't even guilty of. Vote against a bill for veterans healthcare because the dems placed some sneaky spending language into it, and the dems can then say the republicans voted against veterans healthcare. If the republicans don't want to take the hit and pass it in spite of objections, the dems get another pass to spend money recklessly.

In the case of this bill, the republicans voted for it the first time around, but the dems ran it back through for some bullshit reason and changed the language. But guess who takes the bad PR when they call bullshit?

As I pointed out in a previous post, it's the oldest play in the dem playbook.

 

[bluetoe]

Care to explain why 25 Republican Senators first voted in favor of the PACT Act, but then reversed their vote Wednesday once news broke of the agreement between Chuck Schumer and Joe Manchin that will allow Democrats to pass new spending on the climate and healthcare without any Republican votes?

Self-explanatory isn't it? Dems are constantly doing an end around to get their hands on more entitlement money or other measures that allow them to throw gobs of money into the wind. There are all manner of ways employed to foil them. Duh.

Care to explain why the language of the bill changed when the dems said that it had to be run back through for procedural purposes?

 

[gunslingerdick]

 

[strummingram]

Jon Stewart didn't nail shit. Jon Stewart is playing politics or is somehow oblivious to the actualities of politics. AS ALWAYS, when you look into it you'll find that there is a money reason sneakily attached to any worthwhile bill that Republicans reject. And that reason is usually either a spending grab by democrats or some unacceptable clause that allows them to scream 'they hate veterans' or whatever a bill pertains to.

In this case, and I admit I didn't delve into it once I found the objection, it was a separate deal that in part put the wrench into the works. I couldn't find what I had the other day but I found this reference to it, as well as the money objection in the bill itself. Notice how far into the article this is buried.

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/senate-republicans-block-veterans-toxic-exposure-bill/

"Instead, the bill failed a procedural vote when 41 Senate Republicans voted against it, denying the legislation the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. The bill’s defeat came after news of Schumer’s deal with Manchin broke, but Republicans told the Washington Post that their objection to the PACT Act has to do with money.

Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, of Pennsylvania, has been the PACT Act’s chief opponent. He has argued that the legislation has a provision that would move $400 billion earmarked for veterans healthcare into mandatory spending, which passes every year without any action from Congress. Toomey claims that move would allow lawmakers to spend the same amount of money in discretionary spending, which is appropriated by Congress each year.

Concerned Veterans for America, a conservative veterans group, said they understood why Senate Republicans objected to the PACT Act as the legislation is currently written, said Marine veteran John Byrnes, CVA’s director of education.

“CVA understands the hesitation of Republican senators to advance the current version of the PACT Act, given that it would mean expanding the number of veterans eligible for VA healthcare at a time when The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is struggling to provide timely quality care and to be transparent about current wait times for care,” Byrnes said in a statement to Task & Purpose. “There are legitimate concerns about continuing to expand VA spending and reclassify it as mandatory.” "

what's funny to me is how you harp non-stop about how it's all just politics, but when you decide to get in the middle of actual politicking by dems, all of a sudden Jon Stewart deserves a Nobel prize just for being a liberal.

It's also funny how someone who wants so badly to come off as smarter than everyone else can take a few well put together words by someone known for having that ability, and swallow it hook, line, and sinker just like your average mullet.

Stewart was criticizing all of them. They are all taken care of... for life. The two parties play games with the veteran's lives. Their lives are at stake. The Senate plays "You're Worse Than We Are" while the vets die, or commit suicide, or decide between home or chemotherapy. I don't give a shit if it's Shumer, or Manchin, or Toomey, or McConnell, or Patrick fvcking Swayze. They're all crooked as shit and they'll do whatever pleases their corporate bosses FIRST.

You hate Stewart because you have him cast in your world view as a "liberal." Fine... do your thing. It's all you know. And, these vets that will put their fellow vets' lives behind their political party obsession are just as bad.

 

[Heels Noir]

Care to explain why the language of the bill changed when the dems said that it had to be run back through for procedural purposes?

The bill was changed due for "technical drafting error corrections" LAST MONTH before Republicans widely adopted it. The increased funding is going to be allocated to strengthening federal research on toxic exposure and improving the VA’s resources and training. The Republicans are simply pulling excuses out of their bungholes.

Don't you find it EXTREMELY COINCIDENTAL that the Republicans about-faced on this issue just hours after they were reportedly angered over learning about the Democrats agreeing on the spending bill for healthcare and climate change?

Duh.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Don't you find it EXTREMELY COINCIDENTAL that the Republicans about-faced on this issue just hours after they were reportedly angered over learning about the Democrats agreeing on the spending bill for healthcare and climate change?

 

[uncfootball-]

Im still laughing at the clown that said Stewart should run for President because of clips from a speech.

 

[prlyles]

Self-explanatory isn't it? Dems are constantly doing an end around to get their hands on more entitlement money or other measures that allow them to throw gobs of money into the wind. There are all manner of ways employed to foil them. Duh.

Care to explain why the language of the bill changed when the dems said that it had to be run back through for procedural purposes?

You need to learn what the phrase “entitlement money” means. Using it like you do is incorrect.

 

[prlyles]

Even if nothing at all happened, any good process is is always trying to improve. I mean, maybe not in the convenience store world but even businesses that are making more money than ever always seek to improve. If you're standing still, you're backing up.

So again, strengthening the election process is in no way a "response" to previous elections. It's simply the prudent thing to do.

Why are you against it?

Cut the bullshit. You know and so do I, why you want it harder for Americans to vote.

 

[bluetoe]

Stewart was criticizing all of them. They are all taken care of... for life. The two parties play games with the veteran's lives. Their lives are at stake. The Senate plays "You're Worse Than We Are" while the vets die, or commit suicide, or decide between home or chemotherapy. I don't give a shit if it's Shumer, or Manchin, or Toomey, or McConnell, or Patrick fvcking Swayze. They're all crooked as shit and they'll do whatever pleases their corporate bosses FIRST.

You hate Stewart because you have him cast in your world view as a "liberal." Fine... do your thing. It's all you know. And, these vets that will put their fellow vets' lives behind their political party obsession are just as bad.

there you go, typical @strummingram. All I did was point out that contrary to your take on the matter, Jon Stewart wasn't being completely balanced for whatever reason. I said nothing derogatory at all about Jon Stewart personally, but I criticized those who think his one-sided liberal take on the matter makes him a Presidential candidate. THAT was the point I was making.

So now according to you, I didn't say any of that to counter what I believe was an errant characterization, it's because I hate Jon Stewart and that's because I hate everything and that's because...who gives a shit what you say it's because of or what you conjure up in your visits to Alice in Wonderland. All you do is try to knock people down so you can feel intellectually and morally superior. I hope that works in your mind because out here in the real world, you're a bit of a psycho.

But since you mentioned it, let me tell you how I feel about Jon Stewart. I admire the hell out of his talent. His intellect is lofty. He is sharp as a tack and quick as lightening. He is funny as hell in his mockery and sarcasm. But what I don't admire is his willingness to be almost completely one-sided in his targeting of the lunacy of this world. That isn't honest. Watching his show, I grew disgusted by his constant manipulation of the facts in order to construct the basis for some scathing humor. You think I hate him? I planned one of my jaunts to NYC around seeing him do his show, and that's exactly what I did. He was flawless and hilarious, and I came away even more impressed with his abilities. But I don't care much for how he uses them. And even if he was someone that I wasn't thusly prejudiced against, I would still take whatever they said with a grain of salt until a more complete picture started coming together.

And don't even bother with your false narrative that if it was Trump, I'd take anything he said at face value. Just because you need to posit that for your purposes doesn't make it true.

 

[bluetoe]

You need to learn what the phrase “entitlement money” means. Using it like you do is incorrect.

sue me

 

[bluetoe]

The bill was changed due for "technical drafting error corrections" LAST MONTH before Republicans widely adopted it. The increased funding is going to be allocated to strengthening federal research on toxic exposure and improving the VA’s resources and training. The Republicans are simply pulling excuses out of their bungholes.

Don't you find it EXTREMELY COINCIDENTAL that the Republicans about-faced on this issue just hours after they were reportedly angered over learning about the Democrats agreeing on the spending bill for healthcare and climate change?

Duh.

excuses for what exactly? What excuse are they looking for for voting against a bill that they previously approved? WHY would they not approve it on the second iteration if it was OK in the first one?

And no, I wasn't surprised at the timing. I already said myself that there was a side issue, and I explained why that might be one roadblock. Try to keep up.

And try again, but harder this time.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Cut the bullshit. You know and so do I, why you want it harder for Americans to vote.

Why are you against secure elections?

 

[bluetoe]

Im still laughing at the clown that said Stewart should run for President because of clips from a speech.

the funny part is how they fall all over themselves clamoring to claim that others are being so easily duped by the pols they support. So a segment of a speech gets posted and all of a sudden, there's our next president. No wonder we ended up with Biden/Harris.

 

[strummingram]

there you go, typical @strummingram. All I did was point out that contrary to your take on the matter, Jon Stewart wasn't being completely balanced for whatever reason. I said nothing derogatory at all about Jon Stewart personally, but I criticized those who think his one-sided liberal take on the matter makes him a Presidential candidate. THAT was the point I was making.

So now according to you, I didn't say any of that to counter what I believe was an errant characterization, it's because I hate Jon Stewart and that's because I hate everything and that's because...who gives a shit what you say it's because of or what you conjure up in your visits to Alice in Wonderland. All you do is try to knock people down so you can feel intellectually and morally superior. I hope that works in your mind because out here in the real world, you're a bit of a psycho.

But since you mentioned it, let me tell you how I feel about Jon Stewart. I admire the hell out of his talent. His intellect is lofty. He is sharp as a tack and quick as lightening. He is funny as hell in his mockery and sarcasm. But what I don't admire is his willingness to be almost completely one-sided in his targeting of the lunacy of this world. That isn't honest. Watching his show, I grew disgusted by his constant manipulation of the facts in order to construct the basis for some scathing humor. You think I hate him? I planned one of my jaunts to NYC around seeing him do his show, and that's exactly what I did. He was flawless and hilarious, and I came away even more impressed with his abilities. But I don't care much for how he uses them. And even if he was someone that I wasn't thusly prejudiced against, I would still take whatever they said with a grain of salt until a more complete picture started coming together.

And don't even bother with your false narrative that if it was Trump, I'd take anything he said at face value. Just because you need to posit that for your purposes doesn't make it true.

Should I be atypical @strummingram ?

 

[strummingram]

the funny part is how they fall all over themselves clamoring to claim that others are being so easily duped by the pols they support. So a segment of a speech gets posted and all of a sudden, there's our next president. No wonder we ended up with Trump/Pence.

FIFY

We got Biden because it was a mistake to vote for celebrities just because they make us feel good.

 

[bluetoe]

Should I be atypical @strummingram

that would be quite a refreshing break from the dogmatic 'politics is bullshit' deal.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Should I be atypical @strummingram ?

I think most of us would prefer you not be @strummingram.

Or just not be.

 

[bluetoe]

FIFY

We got Biden because it was a mistake to vote for celebrities just because they make us feel good.

you're making my point. You voted against somebody because they were a celebrity, and voted in the complete clown show that allows most sane people to see that voting for a celebrity wasn't so bad after all.

 

[strummingram]

I think most of us would prefer you not be @strummingram.

Or just not be.

Sheeeeit! You LOVE me! You, of all of "us", love me the most!

 

[prlyles]

you're making my point. You voted against somebody because they were a celebrity, and voted in the complete clown show that allows most sane people to see that voting for a celebrity wasn't so bad after all.

Yes it was bad.

 

[strummingram]

you're making my point. You voted against somebody because they were a celebrity, and voted in the complete clown show that allows most sane people to see that voting for a celebrity wasn't so bad after all.

That's your point? Your point is that professional celebrities/entertainers are good choices or bad choices? I guess, like with anyone, it depends on the celebrity.

ETA: I didn't vote against Trump because he was a celebrity. I voted against him because he's a disgusting human being. Big difference.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Sheeeeit! You LOVE me! You, of all of "us", love me the most!

Let's experiment. You go away for 6 months and someone here can report back about how upset I got about it. Deal?

 

[bluetoe]

That's your point? Your point is that professional celebrities/entertainers are good choices or bad choices? I guess, like with anyone, it depends on the celebrity.

ETA: I didn't vote against Trump because he was a celebrity. I voted against him because he's a disgusting human being. Big difference.

well then why do you assume I voted for him BECAUSE he was a celebrity and not simply because I thought he would represent my interests better than the opposition? That turned out to be correct, I should add.

It's this nonsensical mischaracterization and false narrative that you routinely practice so consistently that I'm talking about in this thread. Please be atypical.

 

[gunslingerdick]

That's your point? Your point is that professional celebrities/entertainers are good choices or bad choices? I guess, like with anyone, it depends on the celebrity.

ETA: I didn't vote against Trump because he was a celebrity. I voted against him because he's a disgusting human being. Big difference.

Nice guys finish last.

 

[strummingram]

well then why do you assume I voted for him BECAUSE he was a celebrity and not simply because I thought he would represent my interests better than the opposition? That turned out to be correct, I should add.

It's this nonsensical mischaracterization and false narrative that you routinely practice so consistently that I'm talking about in this thread. Please be atypical.

I don't know why YOU voted for him. I don't even care.

 

[strummingram]

Let's experiment. You go away for 6 months and someone here can report back about how upset I got about it. Deal?

Just 6 months???

 

[gunslingerdick]

Just 6 months???

You pick the length of time and I'll try not to cry about it.

 

[bluetoe]

I don't know why YOU voted for him. I don't even care.

You lump all Trump supporters together in your posts. If you don't mind breaking me out separately from now on, that would be really good of you. Better yet though, just stop making baseless claims about those who voted for someone you don't happen to care for.

 

[strummingram]

You lump all Trump supporters together in your posts. If you don't mind breaking me out separately from now on, that would be really good of you. Better yet though, just stop making baseless claims about those who voted for someone you don't happen to care for.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I forget how easily victimized you are.

 

[gunslingerdick]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I forget how easily victimized you are.

 

[uncboy10]

Im still laughing at the clown that said Stewart should run for President because of clips from a speech.

I’ve wanted Stewart to run for office for a long time. Laugh away dipshit. But at least wipe the spray tan off your chin.

You lump all Trump supporters together in your posts. If you don't mind breaking me out separately from now on, that would be really good of you. Better yet though, just stop making baseless claims about those who voted for someone you don't happen to care for.

You constantly do the same shit with anyone who voted for Biden, despite the fact that pretty much everyone here is in agreement that he sucks. But don’t ever change, your complete lack of self awareness makes for some pretty good entertainment.