Interesting
 

You seem to have a misunderstanding. Let me see if I can explain it to you.

There's this thing called time. Not all event happen at once, at least within the normal human perception. First one event will happen, and then another will happen. Sometimes, a subsequent event will change the result of a prior event. For example, at time A, I could set down a cup of coffee on my desk. At time B (after time A), I could say to someone in my office "My cup of coffee is on my desk." At time C I could pick my cup of coffee up off the desk and put it in the kitchen. The fact that at time D an observer would note that my coffee cup is not, in fact, on my desk, does not make my statement at time B any less true.

However, even with the passage of time, Jim Mattox still isn't a Republican.

I've read this twice, and, granting that I'm sort of distracted and busy today, and so maybe not at my most prescient, I'm not totally clear about what you said, except I think you just called Ted Kennedy "dumb as a post." So, I'll buy in here.

Interesting
 

Um, I think if you go back and read it, you'll find that the quislings in the House merely removed the name of the bridge to nowhere from the bill, so that they could claim some nobility, but (sneakily enough!) left the money in, and told Alaska "spend it as you see fit."

Effing snakes. All PR, no substance.

Interesting
 

I know she's blowing you (at least I hope so), but that doesn't make her right. So let's take that concept called time that you referenced. One measure of time is the 24-hour period called a day. Your lover stated that that Republicans wouldn't pass a budget with any cuts in one specific 24-day period . In fact, the House Republicans passed just such a bill. As much as you might like to defend her reputation (although what's left is open to debate; all we know is that she isn't into fisting or watersports (can you confirm this?)), her statement of "not today" was incorrect. Moreover, her guess that the bridge to nowhere would still be funded was also incorrect.
Now, while your attempt to support your girlfriend was ultimately unsuccessful, take solace that it might lead to further good luvin'. And really, isn't that what your response was about anyway.

Interesting
 

That's correct but Alaska's governor has stated that the State is unlikely to pony up the additional ~$100 million needed to construct the bridge. So the likelihood of the bridge being built is essentially nil.

Interesting
 

The measure passed early this morning.

Congratulations. Your party poured over the budget and cut funding for poor and poor sick people. I'm sure it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling.

Interesting
 

Great. So the money's being spent on nothing instead of feeding hungry kids.

Why do you think that's a good thing?

And why does the fact that RT is my girlfriend have anything to do with your inability to comprehend the flow of time and/or that days end and begin at midnight?

I've stepped into other conversations where others have been attacked on the side of the attacked. Shape Shifter and Gatti come to mind, and I'm pretty sure at least once, Hank - believe me, none of them are blowing me.

Interesting
 

Originally posted by baltassoc
Where did I say I supported this? I think all the pork should be cut. That said, a less than 2% budget cut in Medicaid discretionary spending is hardly the end of the world. Or do you believe that there is no fat that can be trimmed from that budget.

If your relationship with her had nothing to do with your response, then why did you reference a prior conversation between her and I?

Literally, maybe, maybe not, although Shifter is probably up for it. Methaphorically, absolutely.

Interesting
 

Such a relief to know there's still a mindless, wholely irrational conservative on the boards. I though my sine qua non was disappeared!

We can always say this for RT: she has never denied having sex with that muppet! And, she never lied to convince us to deploy against Infirmation.

No, can you tell me where the planes were?

Interesting
 

I think that medicaid runs a pretty tight ship, actually.

You implied that it was okay that they left the money in the bill to go to Alaska because the bridge is not actually going to be built. Thank you for clarifying that you are against pork.

How many other people have you had arguments with?

I was just pointing out that your first appearance on this board revealed you to be either: a) a shill for Republican talking points, b) dumb or c) both.

Probably right.

Hank: get back on my methaphorical dick, motherfucker.

Interesting
 

This defense of the House GOP as a bunch of budget cutters will be much more convincing if they don't pass the upcoming bill to further reduce the capital gains tax. We shall see.

In my view, they aren't trying to balance the budget or engage in any serious deficit reduction. This is a fig leaf.

In any event, even if it were otherwise, it is utterly unacceptable to me to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, the elderly, and the children of our nation -- which is what the "fiscal hawks" of the GOP Congress consistently try to do (when they cut at all).

The stated justification for this is, usually, the philosophical attraction of a limited federal government. The cold, hard truth of the matter is that those with less political clout, who make fewer campaign contributions and hire fewer lobbyists tend to get screwed the hardest.

S_A_M

P.S. What brought you here? I'd swear no one said your name three times.

Interesting
 

Do you find that your habit of finding "implications" where none exist has ever effected your non-internet-based life?


SAM and Ty, to name two.

I'm glad my postings were memorable to you, although you referenced my second appearance. (Of course, one could argue that my first appearance demonstrated the same points.) I am, however, extremely saddened that you think I might be dumb. Perhaps if I continue to engage in these informative conversations with you I can raise my intelligence enough that I can get a job in Baltimore.

Interesting
 

Far be it for me to defend this Congress or administration as being fiscally conservative; they are most certainly not. However, one must be a fool to believe the Democrats would be more responsible. I won't say I'm surprised by your dislike of the capital gains tax cut but is it your position that they are not effective at improving the market? I'll note that NASDAQ and the S&P 500 hit 4 1/2 year highs yesterday. Also, the budget deficit is decreasing.

Unfortunately, until both sides of Congress get serious about addressing the ever-rising non-discretionary entitltement spending, Congress has only a few places to realistically cut the budget. Transportation would be an excellent place to start but until voters place more emphasis on deficit reduction than on bringing home the pork, this area will not improve. Defense is another possibility but most citizens recognize the need for a strong military. Nonetheless, the defense budget should also not be a place for additional pork projects and should be subject to more scrutiny then it is now. The primary area where I think your argument about stronger political clout is accurate is in terms of farm subsidies and tariffs. I would agree that budget reductions should be made here before they are made to many of the services provided to the poor.
Finally, I challenge your contention that the elderly do not have political clout. I'm sure you've heard of AARP.

Interesting
 

My suggestion is to get rid of the stupid, bloated, poorly constructed Medicare Part D. The elderly haven't received that particular entitlement yet, so the bitching isn't going to be as loud as it will be in two years when Congress realizes what exactly it got itself into with that monstrosity.

Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

I'll believe this if Scooter and Turd Blossom pack up their rolodexes before the indictments come down.