Media ridicules "pay-go" rhetoric

[STAND4LIBERTY]

but you don't think that someone can take the personal responsibility of providing a link to their own quotes.

It was an idiot test ... congratulations you passed with flying colors.

It's just amazing how extraordinarily predictable left wingers are ..........

No, it wasn't. You were trying to skew, distort and deflect from the fact that you flat out lied.

I lied? really and of course you have proof of this, right ?

You quoted a source only halfway to make it appear to support your position, when it really did the opposite. You have absolutely zero integrity.

"Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it."

Are you done making yourself look stupid yet?

 

[MaggieMae]

Nik, in case you haven't guessed by now, Libertyguy prefers to attack the messenger rather than the message. Ignore him or he'll stalk you like Jack the Ripper.

You should really learn how to read Maggie (and probably how to mind your own business while you're at it), Nik was the one attacking the messenger not me, just like you were the one attacking the messenger (poking your nose into another AB conversation I might add, just like you're doing here) the other day when you started crying about being picked on....

If you can't stand the heat of the kitchen, you shouldn't start crap with your betters.....

Yassa, boss.

 

[DamnYankee]

When you reduce the deficit and cut taxes and promote and atmosphere of competetion the economy thrives even Bill Clinton understood this.

Bill Clinton understood that he was the most powerful president ever, because Congress armed him with tools no other President had ever enjoyed and none have since: Line-item veto and Gramm-Rudman. It also helped immensely that back then, Paygo had some actual teeth instead of this garbage the House passed -- which by the way never made it to the Senate, therefore isn't law yet... -- and even if passed is just a toothless mouse in a house full of feral cats.

Obama's simply paying lip service to his massive deficit, because opinion polls and focus groups showed that's an area he needed to pay lip service to. This is how he governs, by polls and focus groups. His approval rating is by far the most important thing to him.

Line item veto was struck down by the Supreme Court.

After two years.

 

[Sinatra]

I agree with those indicating this is just a tactic to get considerable tax increases, among other things.

This administration and Democrat Congress continues to push us down a path of certain economic collapse - it is the very worst of Bush II multiplied.

It's gettin' pretty scary in America...

 

[DamnYankee]

I don't think he ever told Wolf Blitzer or anyone else that he would put health care on hold. I recall Blitzer (and others) asking what his top 3 priorities would be, if he had to back-burner some, and he specifically said it would NOT be health care, but probably energy, then education.

Let me give you a heads-up for future reference, Maggie. I don't throw out bullshit that I can't back up.

In an interview with Wolf Blitzer in Des Moines, Iowa, Obama was asked to name his top priority from a list of issues, including taxes, health care, education, energy policy and immigration.

"[The] top priority may not be any of those five. It may be continuing to stabilize the financial system. We don't know yet what's going to happen in January," he said. "None of this can be accomplished if we continue to see a potential meltdown in the banking system and financial system. So that's priority No. 1: making sure the plumbing works."

Obama said priority No. 2 is energy independence:

"We have to seize this moment, because it's not just an energy independence issue; it's also a national security issue, and it's a jobs issue. We can create 5 million new green energy jobs."

Priority No. 3: Health care reform.

Priority No. 4: "Making sure we have tax cuts for the middle class as part of a broader tax reform effort."

Obama later expanded his discussion on how tax cuts relate to a bigger economic plan.

"The tax cut that I talked about may be part of my priority No. 1, because I think that's going to be part of stabilizing the economy as a whole," he said. (Ooops, that just got bumped up ahead of Health Care Reform)

"I think we're going to need a second stimulus. Part of my commitment is to make sure that the stimulus includes a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans. It may be the first bill I introduce."

Priority No. 5: Reforming the education system.


Now, if Obama hasn't yet accomplished Priority #1, #2 and #3 (which is the new #1b), please tell me how Health Care is on the front burner.

As far as threatening, coercing and blackmailing Congress, with what? When will you whining losers stop with your stupid fucking assumptions?

The Associated Press: Obama says health care changes must come this year

Obama urges senators to get job done on health - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com

Obama to take on health care at town hall - CNN.com


Use your imagination.

Well hell, was that interview conducted when Obama had just won Iowa? Frankly, health care has been his Number One priority for at least a year, but if you want to put a checkmark next to Liberty =1, Maggie =0, that's fine by me. Whatever floats your boat.

'Scuse me? You so overwhelmed you're unable to keep track of whose post you're responding to? I realize I'm relatively new around here, but not new anywhere that I don't detect deflection.

No, the debate was NOT just after Obama won Iowa - it was in October IN Iowa. Health care may have been his #1 priority before the economy became everyone's #1 priority. You do recall the meltdown in September, don't you? That would be when it was deemed necessary for Obama and McCain to get their asses back to Washington and do something about it. Hmm... Now let me see... Damned fine job so far!

Now, did you or did you not say "if he had to back-burner some, and he specifically said it would NOT be health care"? And did I not adequately address and prove it to be inaccurate? And is Obama not now making it part of Priority #1 despite what he said then?

This is not about AllBiz = 1 and Maggie = 0. It's about America = 0 because Obama = 0.

 

[DamnYankee]

Riddle me this: Which number is bigger:

999,821 million
-or-
1.2 trillion

Is that with or without inflation?

It's a simple math question, just answer it.

Clearly it is not. One factor is that Bush's number doesn't count the wars, and Obama's does. 2, inflation matters.

Yea, you called the shot. Like if I were at half court and called, MISS!!!

You realize that the revised CBO numbers do include the cost of the wars?

Interesting article now, if you haven't already read it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html

 

[DamnYankee]

The bill that will pass, if any, will give you the option of keeping your own existing insurance, going without, or selecting a policy bid out to private insurers (probably around ten plans selected at varying premium costs). Once and for all, universal health care will not happen this year, and probably not until a major health crisis forces the government into one.

You heard it here, people.

Obama's Health Care Strategy Revealed

Obama Health Care Push Goes On The Road

Obama declares that it's time to fix health care - White House- msnbc.com


Oh wait.... There might just be a hitch after all...

Obama's health care plan arouses fierce debate_English_Xinhua

 

[Meister]

So how are we going to tax skateboarding, basketball, rock-climbing, ATV-ing, cliff diving, spelunking, scuba diving, swimming, mountain biking, and the other 100,000 ways one can end up in the hospital.

Colorodoman is going to pissed when he finds out his carabiner are going to be $500 apiece.

Do I hear a recreational tax coming down the pipeline?

Good gawd, you people are such hysterical Chicken Littles. You're all hilarious.

If you don't think that PayGo won't create new taxes, then your living in another world, Maggie. PayGo is just a word that is the tip of the iceberg.

PS this was a post that was joking with another poster. It was taking it to the extreme, and I really don't think we will have a recreational tax in the form stated in the posts.

 

[DamnYankee]

Do I hear a recreational tax coming down the pipeline?

Good gawd, you people are such hysterical Chicken Littles. You're all hilarious.

If you don't think that PayGo won't create new taxes, then your living in another world, Maggie. PayGo is just a word that is the tip of the iceberg.

PS this was a post that was joking with another poster. It was taking it to the extreme, and I really don't think we will have a recreational tax in the form stated in the posts.

Wouldn't surprise me if they tried though. They've already managed the sin taxes, and the basic living taxes. What's to stop it?

 

[Nik]

It was an idiot test ... congratulations you passed with flying colors.

It's just amazing how extraordinarily predictable left wingers are ..........

No, it wasn't. You were trying to skew, distort and deflect from the fact that you flat out lied.

I lied? really and of course you have proof of this, right ?

You quoted a source only halfway to make it appear to support your position, when it really did the opposite. You have absolutely zero integrity.

"Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it."

Are you done making yourself look stupid yet?

Yes, you lied. You stopped the quote in the middle of the sentence to change the meaning.

You posted:

Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument

When the actual definition was

Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument.

Funny that the difference between the two is exactly the distinction that I pointed out before. Now go fuck off, dipshit. Oh hey, its another ad hom! Oh, no, wait, I wasn't using it to attack your argument, I was just calling you a dipshit cause you are one.

 

[Meister]

No, it wasn't. You were trying to skew, distort and deflect from the fact that you flat out lied.

I lied? really and of course you have proof of this, right ?


"Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it."

Are you done making yourself look stupid yet?

Yes, you lied. You stopped the quote in the middle of the sentence to change the meaning.

You posted:

Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument

When the actual definition was

Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument.

Funny that the difference between the two is exactly the distinction that I pointed out before. Now go fuck off, dipshit. Oh hey, its another ad hom! Oh, no, wait, I wasn't using it to attack your argument, I was just calling you a dipshit cause you are one.

A very mature post by Nik.

 

[Nik]

I lied? really and of course you have proof of this, right ?


"Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it."

Are you done making yourself look stupid yet?

Yes, you lied. You stopped the quote in the middle of the sentence to change the meaning.

You posted:


When the actual definition was

Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument.

Funny that the difference between the two is exactly the distinction that I pointed out before. Now go fuck off, dipshit. Oh hey, its another ad hom! Oh, no, wait, I wasn't using it to attack your argument, I was just calling you a dipshit cause you are one.

A very mature post by Nik.

Poor baby. You said because I was mean to your bff?

Here, have a tissue.

 

[Meister]

Yes, you lied. You stopped the quote in the middle of the sentence to change the meaning.

You posted:


When the actual definition was



Funny that the difference between the two is exactly the distinction that I pointed out before. Now go fuck off, dipshit. Oh hey, its another ad hom! Oh, no, wait, I wasn't using it to attack your argument, I was just calling you a dipshit cause you are one.

A very mature post by Nik.

Poor baby. You said because I was mean to your bff?

Here, have a tissue.

Dude, you got nothing over me. You have to resort to this kind of posting because you have no game. It's OK, I'm used to it from the left. When faced with facts they resort to your type of posting.

 

[DamnYankee]

Yes, you lied. You stopped the quote in the middle of the sentence to change the meaning.

You posted:


When the actual definition was



Funny that the difference between the two is exactly the distinction that I pointed out before. Now go fuck off, dipshit. Oh hey, its another ad hom! Oh, no, wait, I wasn't using it to attack your argument, I was just calling you a dipshit cause you are one.

A very mature post by Nik.

Poor baby. You said because I was mean to your bff?

Here, have a tissue.

Couldn't have anything to do with you coming across as a fucking dipshit....

 

[Nik]

A very mature post by Nik.

Poor baby. You said because I was mean to your bff?

Here, have a tissue.

Dude, you got nothing over me. You have to resort to this kind of posting because you have no game. It's OK, I'm used to it from the left. When faced with facts they resort to your type of posting.

I have no game? Really? So why am I posting facts and all you can post is "

A very mature post by Nik.

How bout you trying responding to the substance of what I said, and refrain from bitching and whining about how mean I was.

 

[Meister]

Poor baby. You said because I was mean to your bff?

Here, have a tissue.

Dude, you got nothing over me. You have to resort to this kind of posting because you have no game. It's OK, I'm used to it from the left. When faced with facts they resort to your type of posting.

I have no game? Really? So why am I posting facts and all you can post is "

A very mature post by Nik.

How bout you trying responding to the substance of what I said, and refrain from bitching and whining about how mean I was.

You know what you sound like sonny? "I know what I am, but what are you?"

Grow up

 

[Nik]

A very mature post by Nik.

Poor baby. You said because I was mean to your bff?

Here, have a tissue.

Couldn't have anything to do with you coming across as a fucking dipshit....

Lmfao...its a veritable phalanx of right-wingers coming out against me. And yet...none of you are responding to my actual points. Funny that.

/wave Del. Love you too honey.

 

[Nik]

Dude, you got nothing over me. You have to resort to this kind of posting because you have no game. It's OK, I'm used to it from the left. When faced with facts they resort to your type of posting.

I have no game? Really? So why am I posting facts and all you can post is "

A very mature post by Nik.

How bout you trying responding to the substance of what I said, and refrain from bitching and whining about how mean I was.

You know what you sound like sonny? "I know what I am, but what are you?"

Grow up

No, I don't. Maybe your interpreting it as that because you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, but I'm not. Nobody accused me of not responding to substance. He accused me of, incorrectly, an ad hominem. Now, I really don't give a fuck if you attack me or not, but really if you are going to be a colossal waste of bandwidth, at least try and make some cognizable points?

 

[Meister]

I have no game? Really? So why am I posting facts and all you can post is "



How bout you trying responding to the substance of what I said, and refrain from bitching and whining about how mean I was.

You know what you sound like sonny? "I know what I am, but what are you?"

Grow up

No, I don't. Maybe your interpreting it as that because you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, but I'm not. Nobody accused me of not responding to substance. He accused me of, incorrectly, an ad hominem. Now, I really don't give a fuck if you attack me or not, but really if you are going to be a colossal waste of bandwidth, at least try and make some cognizable points?[/QUOTE]

I'll let your words speak for themselves, sonny.

 

[Nik]

You know what you sound like sonny? "I know what I am, but what are you?"

Grow up

No, I don't. Maybe your interpreting it as that because you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, but I'm not. Nobody accused me of not responding to substance. He accused me of, incorrectly, an ad hominem. Now, I really don't give a fuck if you attack me or not, but really if you are going to be a colossal waste of bandwidth, at least try and make some cognizable points?[/QUOTE]

I'll let your words speak for themselves, sonny.

Ok, thanks. Next time, please just let my words speak for themselves instead of letting us all know that your going to let my words speak for themselves. Or maybe you can dig real deep into that abyss behind your ears and find something substantive to say. That'd be nice, for once.