Reconciliation...

[Liability]

You know, Hell pairs people like you two for eternity. Enjoy the practice.

Why? Because he's a retard who claims I said something I never said?

Are you as hampered in reading comprehension as he is?

Actually, I was making an insight into Hell without commentary of any sort as to either party's position or statements.

No. That's not what you were doing. And, your prose needs a whole lot of sharpening in any event.

Judgmental assholes get a place in hell, too. Good luck with that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Aside from the obvious fact that you are tragically incoherent, the only thing one can derive from that lame-ass post of yours is that you apparently believe that loyalty to what the Constitution actually calls-for is laugh-worthy.

This comes as no surprise. You are, after all, a lib.

Laughable is when someone with zero legal training and/or academic gravitas speaks to what "the Constitution actually calls-for".

Admit you have no legal training.
Admit you have never studied ConLaw.
Admit you post talking points yet have no background/education or training which qualifies you as an expert (or even an informed dilettante) on Constitutional issues.

I am not responsible for YOUR abject woeful ignorance amd the absurd willingness you often display to make stupid, baseless and ultimately incorrect ASSumptions, Fly Catcher.

It would be impossible for me to "admit" any of the above since I do, in fact, have legal training, I did study Constitutional Law and my experience dealing with Constitutional issues is simply an historical fact.

Furthermore, you imbecile, it is not even required that one be a lawyer to intelligently discuss the Constitution. That may help, but the thing that is actually required is studying history and grasping the gist of the complex set of things which the Framers were attempting to accomplish. There is a wealth of historical information, much of it very contemporaneous with their actions, which may be used to garner that historical insight.

Your appalling lack of basic education in the fields of American history and political philosophy is very sad; but, again, it is not my personal responsibility.

Ever watch Survivor? You sure remind me of Coach. Your experience with Constitutional issues is simply an historical fact? Unless your real name is Miranda, or Scott (you are rather dreadful, I admit) I suspect you and coach suffer the same mental disorder.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Aside from the obvious fact that you are tragically incoherent, the only thing one can derive from that lame-ass post of yours is that you apparently believe that loyalty to what the Constitution actually calls-for is laugh-worthy.

This comes as no surprise. You are, after all, a lib.

Laughable is when someone with zero legal training and/or academic gravitas speaks to what "the Constitution actually calls-for".

Admit you have no legal training.
Admit you have never studied ConLaw.
Admit you post talking points yet have no background/education or training which qualifies you as an expert (or even an informed dilettante) on Constitutional issues.

I am not responsible for YOUR abject woeful ignorance amd the absurd willingness you often display to make stupid, baseless and ultimately incorrect ASSumptions, Fly Catcher.

It would be impossible for me to "admit" any of the above since I do, in fact, have legal training, I did study Constitutional Law and my experience dealing with Constitutional issues is simply an historical fact.

Furthermore, you imbecile, it is not even required that one be a lawyer to intelligently discuss the Constitution. That may help, but the thing that is actually required is studying history and grasping the gist of the complex set of things which the Framers were attempting to accomplish. There is a wealth of historical information, much of it very contemporaneous with their actions, which may be used to garner that historical insight.

Your appalling lack of basic education in the fields of American history and political philosophy is very sad; but, again, it is not my personal responsibility.

Vintage Liability!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Laughable is when someone with zero legal training and/or academic gravitas speaks to what "the Constitution actually calls-for".

Admit you have no legal training.
Admit you have never studied ConLaw.
Admit you post talking points yet have no background/education or training which qualifies you as an expert (or even an informed dilettante) on Constitutional issues.

I am not responsible for YOUR abject woeful ignorance amd the absurd willingness you often display to make stupid, baseless and ultimately incorrect ASSumptions, Fly Catcher.

It would be impossible for me to "admit" any of the above since I do, in fact, have legal training, I did study Constitutional Law and my experience dealing with Constitutional issues is simply an historical fact.

Furthermore, you imbecile, it is not even required that one be a lawyer to intelligently discuss the Constitution. That may help, but the thing that is actually required is studying history and grasping the gist of the complex set of things which the Framers were attempting to accomplish. There is a wealth of historical information, much of it very contemporaneous with their actions, which may be used to garner that historical insight.

Your appalling lack of basic education in the fields of American history and political philosophy is very sad; but, again, it is not my personal responsibility.

Ever watch Survivor? You sure remind me of Coach. Your experience with Constitutional issues is simply an historical fact? Unless your real name is Miranda, or Scott (you are rather dreadful, I admit) I suspect you and coach suffer the same mental disorder.

Quit while you're behind

 

[Wry Catcher]

I am not responsible for YOUR abject woeful ignorance amd the absurd willingness you often display to make stupid, baseless and ultimately incorrect ASSumptions, Fly Catcher.

It would be impossible for me to "admit" any of the above since I do, in fact, have legal training, I did study Constitutional Law and my experience dealing with Constitutional issues is simply an historical fact.

Furthermore, you imbecile, it is not even required that one be a lawyer to intelligently discuss the Constitution. That may help, but the thing that is actually required is studying history and grasping the gist of the complex set of things which the Framers were attempting to accomplish. There is a wealth of historical information, much of it very contemporaneous with their actions, which may be used to garner that historical insight.

Your appalling lack of basic education in the fields of American history and political philosophy is very sad; but, again, it is not my personal responsibility.

Ever watch Survivor? You sure remind me of Coach. Your experience with Constitutional issues is simply an historical fact? Unless your real name is Miranda, or Scott (you are rather dreadful, I admit) I suspect you and coach suffer the same mental disorder.

Quit while you're behind

CFrank, because your head is up your ass you only think I'm behind. Liability did not admit to my question, now it's up to me to request documentary evidence proving the "historical information".
Provide the evidence Liability, or Admit the obvious, that you're full of digested bull feed.

 

[Liability]

Ever watch Survivor? You sure remind me of Coach. Your experience with Constitutional issues is simply an historical fact? Unless your real name is Miranda, or Scott (you are rather dreadful, I admit) I suspect you and coach suffer the same mental disorder.

Quit while you're behind

CFrank, because your head is up your ass you only think I'm behind. Liability did not admit to my question, now it's up to me to request documentary evidence proving the "historical information".
Provide the evidence Liability, or Admit the obvious, that you're full of digested bull feed.

"Provide the evidence Liability, or Admit * * * * "

LOL!

What a fucking total douchebag you are, Fly Catcher.

In what world do you imagine anybody owes you any kind of proof about anything?

I happen to be an attorney, but you (as though it matters in the universe) don't believe it. And?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ever watch Survivor? You sure remind me of Coach. Your experience with Constitutional issues is simply an historical fact? Unless your real name is Miranda, or Scott (you are rather dreadful, I admit) I suspect you and coach suffer the same mental disorder.

Quit while you're behind

CFrank, because your head is up your ass you only think I'm behind. Liability did not admit to my question, now it's up to me to request documentary evidence proving the "historical information".
Provide the evidence Liability, or Admit the obvious, that you're full of digested bull feed.

Wry, you're getting your ass kicked worse than if you decided to pick a fight with Mike Tyson.

It's obvious you don't know dick about the Constitution and worse yet, you're arguing with L who is a practicing lawyer and is dancing quadruple lutzes around your ignorance

L gets 10's across the board, you go fix your shoelace or fix some other excuse to make an exit

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Laughable is when someone with zero legal training and/or academic gravitas speaks to what "the Constitution actually calls-for".

Admit you have no legal training.
Admit you have never studied ConLaw.
Admit you post talking points yet have no background/education or training which qualifies you as an expert (or even an informed dilettante) on Constitutional issues.

I am not responsible for YOUR abject woeful ignorance amd the absurd willingness you often display to make stupid, baseless and ultimately incorrect ASSumptions, Fly Catcher.

It would be impossible for me to "admit" any of the above since I do, in fact, have legal training, I did study Constitutional Law and my experience dealing with Constitutional issues is simply an historical fact.

Furthermore, you imbecile, it is not even required that one be a lawyer to intelligently discuss the Constitution. That may help, but the thing that is actually required is studying history and grasping the gist of the complex set of things which the Framers were attempting to accomplish. There is a wealth of historical information, much of it very contemporaneous with their actions, which may be used to garner that historical insight.

Your appalling lack of basic education in the fields of American history and political philosophy is very sad; but, again, it is not my personal responsibility.

Vintage Liability!!

The one we know and love.

ETA: In a manly, punch-in-the-arm way.

 

[saveliberty]

Why? Because he's a retard who claims I said something I never said?

Are you as hampered in reading comprehension as he is?

Actually, I was making an insight into Hell without commentary of any sort as to either party's position or statements.

No. That's not what you were doing. And, your prose needs a whole lot of sharpening in any event.

Judgmental assholes get a place in hell, too. Good luck with that.

You might want to take it down a notch. In general, I agree with you most of the time. A slash and burn mentality will hurt you in the long run. Seems you have done most of the judging here. Back to the topic at hand. The Constitution by its very nature limits the role of government through the listing of rights of the individual and role of government.

P.S. Interesting that Vast caught my drift before Liability. Kudos Vast.

 

[Liability]

Actually, I was making an insight into Hell without commentary of any sort as to either party's position or statements.

No. That's not what you were doing. And, your prose needs a whole lot of sharpening in any event.

Judgmental assholes get a place in hell, too. Good luck with that.

You might want to take it down a notch. In general, I agree with you most of the time. A slash and burn mentality will hurt you in the long run. Seems you have done most of the judging here. Back to the topic at hand. The Constitution by its very nature limits the role of government through the listing of rights of the individual and role of government.

P.S. Interesting that Vast caught my drift before Liability. Kudos Vast.

No. You might want to think before you post and be honest about what you have posted after that.

For a pontificating kinda guy, you seemed more than willing to make a fucking stupid assertion although you have zero ability to back it up.

I am glad we agree on many things, but that doesn't excuse you from the responsibility for that ignorant post you put up.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Quit while you're behind

CFrank, because your head is up your ass you only think I'm behind. Liability did not admit to my question, now it's up to me to request documentary evidence proving the "historical information".
Provide the evidence Liability, or Admit the obvious, that you're full of digested bull feed.

Wry, you're getting your ass kicked worse than if you decided to pick a fight with Mike Tyson.

It's obvious you don't know dick about the Constitution and worse yet, you're arguing with L who is a practicing lawyer and is dancing quadruple lutzes around your ignorance

L gets 10's across the board, you go fix your shoelace or fix some other excuse to make an exit

Actually moron, I have a life. And, you're too stupid to engage.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Quit while you're behind

CFrank, because your head is up your ass you only think I'm behind. Liability did not admit to my question, now it's up to me to request documentary evidence proving the "historical information".
Provide the evidence Liability, or Admit the obvious, that you're full of digested bull feed.

"Provide the evidence Liability, or Admit * * * * "

LOL!

What a fucking total douchebag you are, Fly Catcher.

In what world do you imagine anybody owes you any kind of proof about anything?

I happen to be an attorney, but you (as though it matters in the universe) don't believe it. And?

You're correct. I don't believe you're an attorney. And, of course, you don't need to prove anything to me. I make assessments based on the words (you) post, the reasonableness of your arguments and others intangibles. On each test you fail. As I suggested, you're not stupid, but you're are one sick puppy and that's obvious by your remarks to me, and everyone you insult.
For what it's worth, I suspect you're under five feet nine, weigh in at a paltry 150 pounds, and got chased home as a student more often then you'd ever admit (even to yourself). You are able to call out others on this (and other message boards because there you are safe) and in doing so you have a sense of manhood, something you have never experienced in real life.
Of course I can't prove any of this, but in fact I spent years as an invetigator and my hunches were usually spot on.
BTW, not everyone who attended law school chose to practice law, some of us were smart enought to understand that 3%@50 made a good deal more sense.

 

[Liability]

CFrank, because your head is up your ass you only think I'm behind. Liability did not admit to my question, now it's up to me to request documentary evidence proving the "historical information".
Provide the evidence Liability, or Admit the obvious, that you're full of digested bull feed.

"Provide the evidence Liability, or Admit * * * * "

LOL!

What a fucking total douchebag you are, Fly Catcher.

In what world do you imagine anybody owes you any kind of proof about anything?

I happen to be an attorney, but you (as though it matters in the universe) don't believe it. And?

You're correct. I don't believe you're an attorney. And, of course, you don't need to prove anything to me. I make assessments based on the words (you) post, the reasonableness of your arguments * * * *

LOL!

I don't care what you do or don't believe. You don't matter that much.

And, no. You do NOT make assessments based on the words I post and reasonableness of my arguments. You have proved beyond any real doubt that you are incapable of employing reason.

You are a biased petty little hack. And in the realm of formal argumentation, you are an abject failure.

I snipped the balance of your post because what you say is repetitious blather.

Try sticking to a point and remaining on topic someday.

The topic of this thread, for instance, is not your assessment of me. It is about the matter of "reconciliation." It was during that portion of the discussion where I invoked the notion of LIMITED GOVERNMENT that you decided to deflect and go all ad hominem. So, if you care to TRY to be honest and topical, try to rationally address that point or address some other aspect of RECONCILIATION.

I wonder what the odds are?

 

[drsmith1072]

Actually NO they weren't part of a budget bill. They were individual bills whose purposes were either to enact, speed up or extend bush's tax cuts.

H.R. 1836 (Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001)

Quote:
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that H.R. 1836 would decrease governmental receipts by $70 billion in 2001, by $512 billion over the 2001-2006 period, and by $1.26 trillion over the 2001-2011 period. In addition, the act would increase direct spending by $4 billion in 2001, by $40 billion over the 2001-2006 period, and by $92 billion over the 2001-2011 period. H.R. 1836 would reduce projected total surpluses by approximately $1.35 trillion over the 2001-2011 period. Of this total, $2.9 billion would be off-budget and not subject to pay-as-you-go procedures.

H.R. 2 (Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 )

Quote:
The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and CBO estimate that H.R. 2 would increase budget deficits by $60.8 billion in 2003, by $342.9 billion over the 2003-2008 period, and by $349.7 billion over the 2003-2013 period.

H.R. 4297 (Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 )

Quote:
The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that this legislation will reduce federal revenues by $70.0 billion over the 2006-2010 period and by $69.1 billion over the 2006-2015 period. In addition, based on information provided by JCT, CBO estimates that the legislation will have no effect on federal spending.
All were passed under reconciliation.

I also asked when reconciliation had been used to ram through new legislation, not about tweaking laws and regulations that had already been in place.

Sheesh...I thought it was you goofy libs that were the ones who were supposed to be able to see all this "nuance" thingy.

So your spin is that bush's NEW legislation concerning taxcuts doesn't count because it altered existing law?? LOL You can't be serious?

Furthermore how does you asking about NEW legislation change the FACT that you were completely WRONG when you tried to claim bush's tax cuts were part of a budget???

You asked for the info after being too lazy to go find it yourself, so I go and get it for you and you avoid and ignore it once again just as I said you would.

Thanks for proving my point. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Learn some history and quit depending upon getting arguments from Democratic Underground to bring in our discussions. The Republicans NEVER had a filibuster proof Senate with the Democracts in the minority.

Nice baseless attack. That seems to be all that righties are offering these days.

Can you show me when and where I made the claim that republicans had a filibsuter proof senate?? Oh you mean I NEVER said that so your attack is baseless and dishonest. thanks for clearing that up.

Democrats had 58 votes + 2 independents for 6 months and in those six months they debated the bills and rammed NOTHING through so your spin of "tyranny over the minority" is nothing but BS propaganda spread by a minority supporting hack.

58 + 2 = 60. The Senate passed the health care bill without conceding one thing to the republicans. It was passed because they had a filibuster proof Senate. Republican could never have done that.

Wow, you can add. LOL The senate passed healthcare and conceded a lot which is why many democrats in the house are refusing to vote in favor of the senate bill. In case you missed it, it passed without a public option.

Oh and once again I have to inform you that I NEVER said that republicans had a filibuster proof majority so why do you continue to make that claim as if it means something??

 

[drsmith1072]

Your a troll, and you wouldn't know what a debate was if it bitch slapped you in the face, smitty.
Carry on with your delusional blather......as you always do, and wonder why people walk away from your stupidity.

Smith is one of those fcukking miserable lefties who spends his whole life on the internet..........a social invalid with the backbone of a Hershey Bar. Note on any of his posts how he goes mental with the "liar" stuff..........like a grade school kid who doesnt know how to respond to getting his balls busted. Who cant see that guy running to the teacher as a kid? DUDE.........do I hit the nail on the head or what??

He was over on the now defunct MSNBC board pulling all the old tired sh!t stuff he pulls here............just the height of gayness.

LOL how hilarious. These poor righties lose the debate so they gang up and try to attack the messenger. LOL

Whole life on the internet?? UH this is the only message board I am on. I don't twitter, facebook or anyother form social networking and for the most part I only log in to this board when I bored at work and have nothing else to do. So at the extreme I spend roughly 2-3 hours a day on the internet on monday -thursday. LOL How much time do you spend online?? LOL

backbone?? You talk trash on a message board and think that shows that you have a backbone?? LOL

Oh and in case you missed it meister called me a liar and proved him wrong showing him to be a liar.

As for the msnbc message board I seem to remember you getting owned on a regular basis as you spammed the message board with incoherent babble followed up by baseless personal attacks after you got owned. Kind of like what you are doing right now. Trying so desperately to make ME the topic. LOL

It's like when you first started talking about that poll that said only "21% consider themselves liberal" and then after I pointed out to you based on the very poll that you cited that when asked which party the group supported the majority supported democrats while less than 40% supported republicans. LOL You disappeared from that thread after lashing out and attacking me but in the end your own poll countered your intended argument.

 

[drsmith1072]

Wry, you, as always, are one clueless fuck. If it were truly the will of the people, it'd be done already. The fact that the Dems are still shitting themselves over how to nationalize 1/6 of the U.S. economy is proof it IS NOT the will of the people.

I say, do it... it will be undone in the next election cycle and the Dems will become irrelevant into the distant future.

DO IT!!!!

Which bill before congress is talking about nationalizing 1/6 of the US economy??

Please cite the bill and show where in said bill this nationalization takes place.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Speaking of the old MSNBC MB, I wonder how many post here under different 'names'. I've only posted under Wry Catcher, but I'm aware that some change their posting name as often - well, maybe more often - then they change their socks.

 

[drsmith1072]

I'll ask again, oh king of debate. lol. DrSmith, please enlighten the room with the schedule of premiums we can expect form this legislation that will make health care coverage affordable and available to all. Until you can answer that one, any comment made by you is drool.

I thinking man could take information like, we are adding people who are at high risk of using their coverage and incurring high bills from medical institutions and conclude that premiums have to go up to cover that. Offering less to providers for services rendered to the elderly will mean some or many doctors will opt out of providing that service. You could also arrive at the result that with Democrats fracturing over abortion, cadillac plan definitions and inclusion or just plain seeing the bill for the piece of crap it is, will mean no majority in the House.

Feel free to drag your knuckles across the floor and out the door. Try not to breathe on anyone on the way out. We are trying to keep health care costs down here.

That may all be true, but now all that is irrelevant. The Dems have the ball, and they really do not care now what their opponents think, say, or do. Get ready for them to ram the bill down their opponents' collective throat. The fall elections will be the litmus test, nothing else.

He is asking me to respond while he has me on ignore. LOL

The fact is he is the one who brought up premiums so I asked him to prove his argument and in response he tells me I am on ignore and then asks me to present facts to support an argument about premiums that I never made even as he refuses to prove his own argument. LOL

 

[Wry Catcher]

Hey NOLA, still spewing the same old bull I see. When last we 'spoke' I challenged you on the meaning of "to nationalize" and you cut and ran. I realize you're not very bright, and simply repeat the talking points of the RW propaganda purveyors, but at some point you really have to realize how your posts reveal your ignorance.