 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 09 Jul 13 - 07:39 PM GfinS doesn't much care about his sources... As long as it drips of Obama hate then that's just fine... About the only thing that GfinS has ever linked that wasn't Obama-hate is music... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don Firth Date: 09 Jul 13 - 07:12 PM Gooballupagus really ought to check on the authenticity and integrity of the sources he believes. Ladled out of the septic tank doesn't cut it, even if it's what he wants to believe. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 09 Jul 13 - 06:43 PM Big surprise, Don - BeardedBullshit is BardedBullshit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don Firth Date: 09 Jul 13 - 06:39 PM The European Union Times claims to be a news site. Its articles on Barack Obama have been linked largely from libertarian Tea Party blogs. Upon close inspection, it is little more than a compiler and regurgitator of various news stories, and a particularly unpleasant far-right-leaning blog. The reporting is, without exception, unprofessional. The anti-Semitic and racist slant of many articles in the European Union Times (which is NOT European) indicates that it is quite probably neo-Nazi. The above is derived from a number of articles about the European Union Times. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 Jul 13 - 05:15 PM Funny, Bobert...it was from the European press...not ours..not Fox...and, maybe THEY see it as a 'regime'. what I found interesting, is that 'our' press isn't carrying it at all. don't you find that curious? What I also find curious, is how YOU accuse others of 'hating', but then show 'hate' to anyone who disagrees with you. Why is that? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 09 Jul 13 - 05:07 PM Any article that can't get thru the 1st paragraph without hate words oozing onto the margins is not worth reading... "Obama regime" is written for Obama-haters by an Obama-hater and therefore offered here by the biggest Obama hater in Mudcat... In other words??? Normal... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 09 Jul 13 - 03:24 PM As opposed to the fact that you do not/cannot think, GeistInsanity? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 Jul 13 - 03:00 PM Whadya' think?? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest From Sanity Date: 07 Jul 13 - 02:50 PM Ah!...the Dynamic Duo! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 07 Jul 13 - 02:32 PM GfinS doesn't care just so long as it's about Obama-hate... Normal... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don Firth Date: 07 Jul 13 - 01:44 PM In the interest in knowing the truth about source material for posted articles, the article, linked to in GfS's post immediately above, is from the Washington Examiner, a tabloid newspaper owned by Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz, who purchased their parent company, Journal Newspapers Inc., in October 2004. It is a megaphone for Anschutz's right-wing views on taxes, national security, and President Barack Obama. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jul 13 - 12:37 PM For what it's worth.......transparency! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 03 Jul 13 - 02:47 PM Calm down, Beardy, you're in denial & spraying spittle again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Jul 13 - 02:23 PM Greg: "So apparently, Beardy, you have a problem with how a constitutional republic (a.k.a. demorcracy for the most part) functions. Please elaborate." Do you mean, like ,"Pass this bill so we can see what's in it"?--Pelosi not even the Democrats who voted for it had even read it, or knew what was in it....so you should re-phrase your original question to; ""So apparently, Democrats, you have a problem with how a constitutional republic.." ...and by the way, a republic means that we are represented by representatives....which were representing us, when nobody, including them, even knew what was in it??..Right? Now before you spout off some banal insult, THINK about what I just posted...and you will see that the opposition to all this, is not based on some racially bigoted, crazy right wing lunacy....the Democrats fucked up mightily, by doing it this way. My contention is that both parties were in on it...in a way that circumvented disclosure to the public, so it was in essence being negotiated and passed behind closed doors, with a lot of back room wheeling dealing...and THAT is FACT, and history....and a fucking shame! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Jul 13 - 02:21 PM "So apparently, Beardy, you have a problem with how a constitutional republic (a.k.a. demorcracy for the most part) functions. " I don't have a problem, you shit-for-brains racist scumbag liar. You do. I have a problem with you and Bobert saying things that are not true and expecting everone to accept your lies. Bobert stated : "Too bad that we have such a broken Congress (especially the House) or this common sense approach would have, at the very least, entered into the conversation/debate" If Congress was broken, it was while the ++Democrats++ controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House. Even if you want your own reality and try to change the past. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 03 Jul 13 - 02:12 PM So apparently, Beardy, you have a problem with how a constitutional republic (a.k.a. demorcracy for the most part) functions. Please elaborate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Jul 13 - 01:40 PM "As I said, get back to the real world & then we'll talk." That would be a long-distance call for you, Greggie boy. The Dems had control- and passed ObamaCare. So you and Bobert had better change your words, and get back into lockstep with the ObamaLine, or Bobert will have to call himself a racist for opposing an Obama initiative. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 03 Jul 13 - 01:36 PM Assuming that the Democratic Party is monolithic, dogmatic, and in jack-booted obstructionist lock-step like the TeaPublicans, that is. As I said, get back to the real world & then we'll talk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Jul 13 - 12:56 PM When Obamacare was passed, Dear little Greggie Boy, The Democrats had both the House ans the Senate...just look it up...or it would have NEVER passed.. To everyone else who is more up to date, than Little Greggie Boy: Now they think they're going to put it off for another year...of uncertainty....with some luck they'll repeal the piece of shit....and then Obama's legacy will be, he wasted his time, the country's, helped fuck up the economy, while causing needless divisions! ..and Bobert, Medicare is not necessarily better than Medicaid. They both have their high points, and both have their deficiencies. Medicaid doesn't have 'co-pay', but covers less. Both are limited to what doctors will take them, while Obamacare is limiting the amount of doctors who are still staying in practice! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Jul 13 - 12:52 PM Greggie, Learn to read: "And who was in control of ++both++ houses of Congress when ObamaCare was passed???????????????????????"" Oh, that's right- Liberals don't bother reading before they make dumb comments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 03 Jul 13 - 12:40 PM "In control of both houses of congress", Beardy? Better check what was going on in the real world instead of wherever it is you spend your time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Jul 13 - 11:47 AM "Too bad that we have such a broken Congress (especially the House) or this common sense approach would have, at the very least, entered into the conversation/debate.." And who was in control of ++both++ houses of Congress when ObamaCare was passed??????????????????????? Too bad Bobert has no idea of real world events. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 03 Jul 13 - 11:43 AM Actually, just expanding Medicare - not Medicaid - would have gone a long way toward fixing our problem... That's pretty much what our competitors have done and getting better health care outcomes on half as much $$$... Too bad that we have such a broken Congress (especially the House) or this common sense approach would have, at the very least, entered into the conversation/debate... We need to have that discussion before people will come around to seein' that it's the only way to fix our serious problems with health care... Free market isn't a fix... It's the problem... And it is corrupt and immoral... $10 aspirins just don't cut if, folks... Ya' see, the way Medicare works is that if the hospital charges $10 for the aspirin then Medicare says, "No thank, Mr. Hospital... We'll pay $1" and that's the end of it... Medicaid, BTW, is for income eligible people... A large chunk of the Medicaid budget goes to paying for nursing home care for folks who have already sold off their assets and have no other resources left to pay for their care... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 03 Jul 13 - 11:32 AM Oh, and yes, Beardy, the entire devious, unfair "liberal establishment" IS out to get you personally. Probably because your Jewish. I've conceded this many times - you don't need to keep bring it up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 03 Jul 13 - 11:22 AM And ditto, Both. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Jul 13 - 11:13 AM Now, now. Greggie boy has been appointed as the spokesman for the Liberal Viewpoint- since no-one objects. He is presenting the best arguments he can think of. Too bad BillD is silent on HIS using attacks as being a logical flaw... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Jul 13 - 11:08 AM Shut up, Greg...your posts are a pain in the ass..and really quite infantile and stupid. If you want to contribute something worthwhile do so, but your juvenile rants are really well worth ignoring! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 03 Jul 13 - 10:49 AM And yet more cherry-picked blogoshit thinly disguised as fact. Atta boy, Beardy - just what we've come to expect from ya. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Jul 13 - 10:00 AM The Obama Administration announced on Tuesday that it is delaying implementing a key component of the Affordable Care Act for a year following complaints from the private sector about reporting requirements. The so-called employer mandate, which penalizes employers with more than 50 employees if they fail to provide a minimum standard of affordable health insurance, was set to kick in in 2014, but now will take effect in 2015, the Treasury Department announced in a blog post first reported by Bloomberg News. The delay not only allows the Administration time to alleviate concerns among business owners, but also takes a controversial component of the law off the table before the midterm elections. The vast majority of employers that already provide coverage to their employees raised concerns about burdensome reporting requirements under the law, a complaint the Administration is particularly sensitive to. Companies that don't meet the law's requirements now have an extra year to alter their policies. (MORE: Why Our Health Care Lets Prices Run Wild) "We have been in a dialogue with businesses and we think we can simplify the new reporting — we want to give businesses who want to provide health insurance the time to get this right," a senior Administration official said, explaining the delay. "Just like our effort to turn the 21-page application for health insurance into a three-page application, we are working hard to adapt and to be flexible in employer and insurer reporting as we implement the law." The delay deprives the federal government of a year of penalties that would have been paid by companies that do not meet the law's requirements, with as yet unknown budgetary effects. Republicans had warned of a downturn in hiring as a result of the mandate. The so-called individual mandate is unaffected by the rule change. That provision requires the vast majority of Americans to purchase insurance or pay a penalty, with tax credits provided to those who can't afford coverage. Republican former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin called the move "deviously brilliant," by removing a potential electoral impediment from in front of congressional Democrats before the midterms. "Democrats no longer face the immediate specter of running against the fallout from a heavy regulatory imposition on employers across the land," Holtz-Eakin wrote. "Explaining away the mandate was going to be a big political lift; having the White House airbrush it from the landscape is way better." The Administration will publish formal guidance on the rule change within the next week. Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/07/02/obama-administration-delays-healthcare-law-employer-penalty-until-2015/#ixzz2XzUtAAmY |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Jul 13 - 01:09 AM I've heard much of the same thing..and even more. All they really needed to do was expand Medicaid from the beginning..... I wonder how many whiners will understand this..or even read it! . GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:26 PM Which blog did this latest pile of horsehit come from, Beardie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Jul 13 - 11:07 AM "I don't know if Members of Congress will be hearing about it in town hall gatherings and other meetings back home over the Fourth of July recess, but the rolling thunder of the approaching ObamaCare train can be heard in the distance. Smart Democrats are beginning to get frantic about the need to suppress the confusion and hide the cost of ObamaCare between now and the 2014 midterm elections. We are just three months away from the October 1st enrollment start date and so far, nothing about the ObamaCare implementation process should be politically encouraging for Democrats. In fact, the more people learn about ObamaCare, the more frightened they become. Right now, small businesses across America are making the final determinations on how to reduce the working hours of their employees so fewer employees qualify for the mandated, employer-provided health insurance. Employers are also deciding whether it makes more economic sense to pay a fine to the government or pay for healthcare benefits for their employees. What this means is that hundreds of thousands – and perhaps even millions – of Americans will learn that they are being dismissed from their employer's healthcare coverage. The healthcare pink slips will start raining down in late summer and early fall. This will push people into the healthcare exchanges, where, in some cases, people will be writing health insurance checks for the first time. And in many cases, people will be facing increased health insurance costs, particularly if they are young and healthy. The negative effects on personal income and the overall economy will be undeniable. Sometime next year, before the elections, the penalties associated with not having or providing health insurance will begin to pour in. Will the fines come in the mail? Will you be able to appeal? What happens if someone doesn't pay? No one knows. Or, no one who knows is talking. The consequences of ObamaCare are being hidden. Today's Wall Street Journal article, "Health-insurance costs set for a jolt" hints at the debacle that is to come. At some point soon, it's going to be undeniable that ObamaCare is nothing but another federal entitlement, where those who are young and healthy bear the direct cost of subsidizing those who are not. In midterm elections, those who vote tend to be more engaged voters. In other words, these voters will notice if they have health insurance that is more expensive but offers less coverage than what they had before ObamaCare. Some of the Democrats' reactions will be predictable, i.e. blaming Bush and blaming Republicans, or for a while, denying the obvious. But that won't work forever. One of the worst sins you can commit in politics is to say something that's different from what people can see for themselves. There is no chance that Obamacare will perform as promised and when it doesn't, voters will be looking for relief." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 29 Jun 13 - 08:29 PM Just for your information....with No commentary GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Date: 26 Jun 13 - 12:10 PM They doin' anything about keepin' tabs on groups that use the terms "poopflinging" (the dreaded P word!) and "organ grinder"? - Chongo p.s. Tone it down, Bobertz. Yer gonna bust a blood vessel. I know what yer problem is. You just ain't had yer organ ground in a long time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 26 Jun 13 - 09:36 AM Where'd you get that latest pile of crap from, Beardy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 25 Jun 13 - 12:53 PM Congress wrote the 501 c 4 legislation, right??? Congress told the IRS that more than half the budget should go toward "social welfare" in order to have that tax exempt status, right??? Congress controls the purse strings on how many people the IRS can hire, right??? Thousands of Tea Party organizations applied for tax exempt status during the debates on the ACA, right??? Very few liberal organizations were applying at the same time, right??? We keep hearing that the government is so evil and wastes money, right??? Problem here is that the reality doesn't fir scandalmania so rather than logically look at stuff that isn't a scandal just yell loud enough, get FOX behind it and make a scandal out of it... To me this was smart on the IRS's part and the entire idea of 501 c 4's written as dumb as any law could be written... Where's all this social welfare??? Yelling that you hate the government ain't it... Where the hell is it??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Jun 13 - 12:10 PM Dang!..I was going to post that, myself...thank you BB... they also said that it has been going on for at least up to a month ago!...which flies in the face of testimony saying otherwise! When are ANY of these people, from this administration, 'testifying', who have been lying through their teeth, going to be charged with perjury???!!?? then we could get rid of them, and they'll be promoted with full benefits, and get bonuses and a substantial pay raise...isn't that the way it works now? Maybe we could eliminate the unemployment rate trying to fill all those newly vacated jobs! ....I guess the jobs MAY go to the highest bidder, from a preferred lit of Obama's cronies!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Jun 13 - 10:51 AM Acting IRS commissioner Danny Werfel on Monday told reporters that the now-infamous "Be On The Lookout" list was far broader than was originally disclosed in the Treasury Department inspector general's report. Reports from outlets including the Associated Press, which I cited in my original report, and now Bloomberg News, confirmed Werfel's account, indicating that various versions of the list not only included terms like "tea party," but also "progressive," "Occupy," and "Israel." A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word "progressive," screeners were in fact instructed to treat "progressive" groups differently from "tea party" groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status "may not be appropriate" for applications containing the word "progressive" – 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off IRS higher-ups for further scrutiny. That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were "currently being coordinated with EOT," which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not. The AP reported earlier on Monday that "Terms including 'Israel,' 'Progressive' and 'Occupy' were used by agency workers to help pick groups for closer examination." That appears to be misleading, as there is no indication from the list examined by NRO that progressive groups were singled out for heightened scrutiny in a manner similar to tea-party groups. Cases involving healthcare legislation, however, were. "New applications are subject to secondary screening in Group 7821," the list notes. Also sent along for more further examination were applications involving "disputed territories in the Middle East," in particular, those that advocated a "one sided point of view," which perhaps explains the testimony of Cincinnati screener Gary Muthert, who told commitee investigators that the applications of pro-Israel groups went to an antiterrorism unit within the agency. Based on the lookout list examined by NRO, however, it is inaccurate to say that progressive and liberal groups were subjected to the same or similar scrutiny as tea-party groups, or even that a surprisingly broad array of criteria was applied to screen applications for tax exemption. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Jun 13 - 12:06 AM A corrected post is on the GMO thread. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 23 Jun 13 - 07:54 PM HR 933, GfinS, was originated in the Republican controlled House... The "HR" mean "House Resolution"... Any more ignorance of basic American government you want to roll out here tonight??? Your hate of Democrats and Obama have blinded you to even the most basic stuff that almost everyone knows or understands... But keep spinning your complete mythology if that makes you happy... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don Firth Date: 23 Jun 13 - 06:16 PM Goofball: "....since when does a Republican submit a rider to a Democrat budget proposal?" They do it all the time, ignoramus! And Democratic senators and congressmen try to add riders to Republican proposals as well. BOTH PARTIES do it all the time, in an effort to try to get things passed that, if it stood by itself, would be summarily squashed. The trick is to attach the rider to a bill that the President pretty much HAS to pass, or at least wants very much to pass, then unless he vetoes the whole bill, it goes into law. That's why the President would like to have the Line Item Veto and the Congress doesn't want to let him have it! Even your simple mind should be able to grasp that! Another graphic example of your ignorance. Slept through high school civics classes, eh? Or did you cut school entirely? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 23 Jun 13 - 05:49 PM ..and it really doesn't matter...the bill was squashed anyway...like his other one that was unanimously rejected by both parties. ..but it did show a 'tip of the hand'. Hey, read the article....that is if party extremists read anything anymore! Apparently from several posts, and history, there isn't much reading of bills going on....take Obamacare....oh never mind, "Let's pass this thing so we can see what's in it"--Pelosi.....and then the dumb-fucks passed it...without even reading it! Great representation, huh? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 23 Jun 13 - 05:41 PM once again, you're out of sync...see my previous post, in regards to WHEN a line item veto is used. ..and since when does a Republican submit a rider to a Democrat budget proposal?..wouldn't he be submitting it to the Republican budget proposal?? You're trying too hard, Don..get some rest. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don Firth Date: 23 Jun 13 - 04:56 PM Goofball, Bobert knows more about what's going on in politics than your feeble mind is capable of grasping. Every time you post, you manage to display a new magnitude of your abysmal ignorance. Bobert: "Obama signed this appropriations bill because not signing it would have meant a partial government shutdown... There is no evidence that he knew it was in the bill either..." Often these bills run to thousands of pages and Presidents have to rely on several aides to each read a part of the thing and give the President as précis of what's in the thing. And it's a sad truth that even the aides miss things. If the President had to read the damned bill himself, he'd never have time to do anything else! GO READ A BOOK, for Crissake!!! Ignorant sod!! Don Firth P. S. It's because of "riders" on bills that presidents have asked repeatedly for the "Line Item Veto" so they can pass a needed bill, but delete the riders that have been tacked on. Read this for openers: Starting with Ulysses S. Grant, every US president has asked congress to enact legislation granting the president line-item veto power but it was not until the Clinton presidency that Congress passed such legislation. Although it was intended to control "pork barrel spending", the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was held to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in a 1998 ruling in Clinton v. City of New York. The court affirmed a lower court decision that the line-item veto was equivalent to the unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes and therefore violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. Before the ruling, President Clinton applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 23 Jun 13 - 03:36 PM ....and BY THE WAY............ Bobert: "BTW, Obama signed this appropriations bill because not signing it would have meant a partial government shutdown... There is no evidence that he knew it was in the bill either.." Maybe he could have 'borrowed back', with interest, of course, some of the Trillion dollar stimulus money, for shovel ready jobs, that he later admitted never existed, from his bankster buddies, who, in fact, ended up with the money. So much horse-crap!...but he is 'OUR' party's Messiah...and he even walks on water!..and if you don't like his policies, it's only because your a 'racist'! Give me a fuckin' break! ..actually, give yourselves a fuckin' break! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 23 Jun 13 - 03:20 PM bobert: "The rider was snuck into the appropriations bill HR HR 933 by Roy Blunt, R-Mo, Gfins.. WHAT??????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you just make that up?? Yes, Monsanto was one of the writers of the bill, and had it included in the Democrat budget...and now you want us to believe that Obama didn't know what it was WHILE HE WAS SIGNING IT??????? Seems to me, as I posted earlier, that your 'Wonder Boys' don't read what they are signing or voting for??? Wasn't a Democracy, Which the Democrat Party is supposed to be named after, include voting on issues the people put forth, rather than rubber stamping agendas for the party's corporate sponsors?? Nope Ol' Bobert buddy, your ridiculous reasoning just don't wash...at all!! Maybe you should just go back to name calling....it is just as dumb! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 23 Jun 13 - 01:20 PM The rider was snuck into the appropriations bill HR HR 933 by Roy Blunt, R-Mo, Gfins... Yes, now that there is some pushback the Republicans are trying to rewrite history and put this on Barbara Mikulski, D- Md, but she is on record of saying she didn't even know that the rider was in the bill... BTW, Obama signed this appropriations bill because not signing it would have meant a partial government shutdown... There is no evidence that he knew it was in the bill either... There's the facts... Sorry they don't jive with the Republican/TeaKK mythological version which isn't true... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 23 Jun 13 - 11:07 AM Maybe that's your problem, sillymore, you don't even read stuff, and claim to understand it...no wonder you support 'legislatures' who do the same thing! sillymore: "There I think I nailed it and I didn't even read it." And, Bobert: "Doesn't want to learn anything new... Reminds me of the people back in the early 1900s who refused to ride in an automobile... Just didn't want to learn or experience anything new..." Sums it up, PERFECTLY!..maybe you two should have a 'talk', as to why you CAN'T discuss a topic intelligently, and resort to calling people who you disagree with, whom you say you don't read, and then call them a 'racist' or 'bigot' a bazillion times, and STILL have no idea what you're talking about. ...and as long as we're at it, and you seem to congratulate yourselves so generously, maybe either one of you can 'interpret' why the Monsanto rider was even allowed to be on the Democratic budget. Let me take a guess....umm...he was representing you and the will of the people?...umm..the corporations 'made him do it'?.....ummm....He likes the fact that people will be taking a lot of advantage of his newly unread Obamacare?....he had a lot extra pens he wanted to test out??...hmmm....he had an insider tip to buy stock in Monsanto?....all of the above??...hmm..maybe you have an answer! What was it, O wise sage?? Can't answer???...hmm.... then let's say GfS MUST be a 'racist' ..yeah, that will cover it! Idiots! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 23 Jun 13 - 09:22 AM ...3000... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 23 Jun 13 - 09:21 AM Oh, and... |
