Budget Deadline Missed- Again

[Koko78]

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/238081-obama-misses-new-budget-deadline

 

 

 

It kills me to vote for someone who dismisses the very basics of financial management- I just wish the GOP were talking change and improve the healthcare bill rather that repeal, I am not sure I would vote Democrat again- I would necessarily vote Republican again, maybe third party, but not Democrat....

 

C'mon man, you know that the Democrats will never allow a GOP proposal to fix Obamacare to see the light of day (allowing the GOP to steal the credit).

 

In all seriousness, it's really just sound political strategy for the GOP to scream repeal and rev up their base (not to mention collect more campaign donations), rather than spinning their wheels by offering proposals to fix the albatross that will never even go to a vote. It's a sad state of affairs, but that's the reality of the situation.

[DC Tom]

"offense" lobby working it hard with their boy cheney doing the dirty work in DC

 

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/07/18/lockheed-cheney-lobby-against-puny-cuts-in-defense-budgets/

 

Boo!!! Scary boogie man! Boo!!!

[Chef Jim]

"offense" lobby working it hard with their boy cheney doing the dirty work in DC

 

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/07/18/lockheed-cheney-lobby-against-puny-cuts-in-defense-budgets/

 

Where does that site get off using the word news in its name?

[truth on hold]

Where does that site get off using the word news in its name?

Do you have any specific objections to the content or are you just being dismissive of the source because you don't like what the article says?

Edited July 19, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[DC Tom]

Do you have any specific objections to the content or are you just being dismissive of the source because you don't like what the article says?

 

The content is a half-assed conglomeration of unfounded assumptions and cherry-picked facts designed to elicit a specific response in the reader, not to inform. In other words: it's an editorial, not news.

 

It also illustrates your idiocy: you THINK you're informed, simply because you read "alternative" news sources, that provide the "information" the mass media doesn't report. All that does is make you contrarian. "Contrarian" isn't "informed" - disagreeing with the common wisdom doesn't make you smarter, it just makes you disagreeable. You can still disagree and be an inveterate moron.

 

As you so amply demonstrate.

[Chef Jim]

Do you have any specific objections to the content or are you just being dismissive of the source because you don't like what the article says?

 

I didn't get past this gem before I stopped reading that "news" piece.

 

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, shilling for the military industry as usual,

[truth on hold]

The content is a half-assed conglomeration of unfounded assumptions and cherry-picked facts designed to elicit a specific response in the reader, not to inform. In other words: it's an editorial, not news.

 

It also illustrates your idiocy: you THINK you're informed, simply because you read "alternative" news sources, that provide the "information" the mass media doesn't report. All that does is make you contrarian. "Contrarian" isn't "informed" - disagreeing with the common wisdom doesn't make you smarter, it just makes you disagreeable. You can still disagree and be an inveterate moron.

 

As you so amply demonstrate.

Nearly any published media has a "bias". That doesn't necessarily invalidate it. In fact, an open point counter-point discussion is often the best way to reduce bias and reach a more objective conclusion.

 

This author has value because a) he uses real numbers and b) he provides a good counter to the proponents of big military spending who justify it as a tool of job creation. Well "defense" is not supposed to create jobs. And that same justification about government spending as a source of job creation is the one attacked by right-wing defense spenders when it comes to the left's government sponsored jobs acts! Example: someone like you who tries to hold himself up as a bastion of free market conservative capitalism, yet aggressively defends the warfare state! f@cking hypocrit, probably derive some of your income from defense contracts. Which would make the thought of government defense spending all the more disturbing, going to a clown like you.

 

You see I don't bother with you all that much, partly because you're not smart, original or insightful. Just a run-of-the-mill partisan hypocrit whose simple mind can't deal with someone like me not easily boxed by popular partisan labels. You think you're some kind of all-purpose know-it-all when you're only displaying your superficial ignorance. I still get a chuckle out of your posts in the facebook IPO thread stating that private stocks are subject to insider-TRADING rules and "Chinese Walls. LOL Further showing your ignorance thinking I don't have Series 7 & 63 licences (which I did but are probably no longer active since Ive been out of the industry for a while) and that the only position on Wall Street that requires them is a broker, something Ive never been. Congrats, you won the trifecta of uninformed idiocy!

 

Unlike you, I purposely go out of my way to seek out articulated view points that I know may differ than mine. It's how one remains challenged and fresh. for example, I read Paul Krugman's op-ed pieces when I get a chance because I know he comes from a different school of thought than me, but he also provides challenging arguments. So I either a) learn something or b) better articulate my own views. As opposed to an insecure dope like you who seeks the saftey of the herd. And like any member of in-bred group ends up retarded.

 

And actually your insecurity points to the main reason I don't bother with you all that much. In addition to having nothing to offer, you're an emotional wreck. On one hand you have a desperate need to feel intellectually superior, and on the other an equally desperate need to be thought of as witty and accepted as popular .... in addition to incompatible goals, they're Quixotic in your case because you don't have goods to achieve either. So the endless stream of unsubstantiated labelling and name calling, or redundant lame ass attempts at humor.

 

You're a psychological basket case and a bore. And I'm not here to coddle the insecure needs of someone beyond help. But lately I'm in a bit of an ornery mood, probably because of the election politics, and I'm looking for easy targets to stomp on. TAG .... you're it.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[DC Tom]

Nearly any published media has a "bias". That doesn't necessarily invalidate it. In fact, an open point counter-point discussion is often the best way to reduce bias and reach a more objective conclusion.

 

This author has value because a) he uses real numbers and b) he provides a good counter to the proponents of big military spending who justify it as a tool of job creation. Well "defense" is not supposed to create jobs. And that same justification about government spending as a source of job creation is the one attacked by right-wing defense spenders when it comes to the left's government sponsored jobs acts! Example: someone like you who tries to hold himself up as a bastion of free market conservative capitalism, yet aggressively defends the warfare state! f@cking hypocrit, probably derive some of your income from defense contracts. Which would make the thought of government defense spending all the more disturbing, going to a clown like you.

 

You see I don't bother with you all that much, partly because you're not smart, original or insightful. Just a run-of-the-mill partisan hypocrit whose simple mind can't deal with someone like me not easily boxed by popular partisan labels. You think you're some kind of all-purpose know-it-all when you're only displaying your superficial ignorance. I still get a chuckle out of your posts in the facebook IPO thread stating that private stocks are subject to insider-TRADING rules and "Chinese Walls. LOL Further showing your ignorance thinking I don't have Series 7 & 63 licences (which I did but are probably no longer active since Ive been out of the industry for a while) and that the only position on Wall Street that requires them is a broker, something Ive never been. Congrats, you won the trifecta of uninformed idiocy!

 

Unlike you, I purposely go out of my way to seek out articulated view points that I know may differ than mine. It's how one remains challenged and fresh. for example, I read Paul Krugman's op-ed pieces when I get a chance because I know he comes from a different school of thought than me, but he also provides challenging arguments. So I either a) learn something or b) better articulate my own views. As opposed to an insecure dope like you who seeks the saftey of the herd. And like any member of in-bred group ends up retarded.

 

And actually your insecurity points to the main reason I don't bother with you all that much. In addition to having nothing to offer, you're an emotional wreck. On one hand you have a desperate need to feel intellectually superior, and on the other an equally desperate need to be thought of as witty and accepted as popular .... in addition to incompatible goals, they're Quixotic in your case because you don't have goods to achieve either. So the endless stream of unsubstantiated labelling and name calling, or redundant lame ass attempts at humor.

 

You're a psychological basket case and a bore. And I'm not here to coddle the insecure needs of someone beyond help. But lately I'm in a bit of an ornery mood, probably because of the election politics, and I'm looking for easy targets to stomp on. TAG .... you're it.

 

The idea that you can "stomp" on me at ALL is absolutely hilarious. You're such a lightweight, I rarely even notice you. You lack the intellectual horsepower to succesfully discuss damn near anything...as evidenced by the fact that you can't see that half-assed nonsensical conglomeration for the half-assed nonsensical conglomeration that it is. "But they use real numbers!" Well...yeah...except that the real numbers themselves are crap (did you follow the links? I did.) and put together in a manner that's dishonest and bankrupt. I could give a line-by-line explanation of that, if I didn't think it would be wasted on you. You're incapable of even noticing that...because you're "intelligent" enough to consider any bull **** that comes your way. Well, guess what? Being open-minded to bull **** doesn't make you smart...it just gives you a head full of ****.

 

The fact that you think I'm a conservative defending" the "warfare state," and that's somehow hypocritical to free market capitalism shows how utterly full of **** you are. As does your boorishly conceited claim to some sort of faux intellectualism because you seek out opposing points of view. Oh, really? You seek out points of view that you've already pre-determined to be wrong before you've even read them??? And you go ahead and call me Quiotic and a hypocrite...while eschewing name calling.

 

And I got my 7 and 63 decades ago. I've got a MUCH longer background in finance than you. Find something else to impress me.

 

Unreal. Get over yourself already, kid.

[truth on hold]

The idea that you can "stomp" on me at ALL is absolutely hilarious. You're such a lightweight, I rarely even notice you. You lack the intellectual horsepower to succesfully discuss damn near anything...as evidenced by the fact that you can't see that half-assed nonsensical conglomeration for the half-assed nonsensical conglomeration that it is. "But they use real numbers!" Well...yeah...except that the real numbers themselves are crap (did you follow the links? I did.) and put together in a manner that's dishonest and bankrupt. I could give a line-by-line explanation of that, if I didn't think it would be wasted on you. You're incapable of even noticing that...because you're "intelligent" enough to consider any bull **** that comes your way. Well, guess what? Being open-minded to bull **** doesn't make you smart...it just gives you a head full of ****.

 

The fact that you think I'm a conservative defending" the "warfare state," and that's somehow hypocritical to free market capitalism shows how utterly full of **** you are. As does your boorishly conceited claim to some sort of faux intellectualism because you seek out opposing points of view. Oh, really? You seek out points of view that you've already pre-determined to be wrong before you've even read them??? And you go ahead and call me Quiotic and a hypocrite...while eschewing name calling.

 

And I got my 7 and 63 decades ago. I've got a MUCH longer background in finance than you. Find something else to impress me.

 

Unreal. Get over yourself already, kid.

"Rarely even notice" me? this from the goofball who loudly boasted how he was going to harrass me off the board and has been following me around ever since. What was that? Over a year & half and 3,000 posts from you ago? Well I'm still here posting away . Descending on you whenever I feel like it, smashing and kicking you in the face with golf spikes on. Exposing you for the impotent, sackless, fragile, waste of breath that you are.

 

Just look no further than this thread. I asked a Jim a question and you uninvited started in on me with:

 

"The content is a half-assed conglomeration of unfounded assumptions and cherry-picked facts designed to elicit a specific response in the reader, not to inform. In other words: it's an editorial, not news.

 

It also illustrates your idiocy: you THINK you're informed, simply because you read "alternative" news sources, that provide the "information" the mass media doesn't report. All that does is make you contrarian. "Contrarian" isn't "informed" - disagreeing with the common wisdom doesn't make you smarter, it just makes you disagreeable. You can still disagree and be an inveterate moron.

 

As you so amply demonstrate."

 

---------------

 

Since your credibility was shot right from the opening sentence of your latest post, I won't even bother addressing the rest of the inane, poorly conceived nonsense. Matter of fact, you're such a waste of time, I'll probably leave you alone again, for the time being anyway. Let you go back to your small circle of admirers with similar mental limitations and damaged psyches. Patting each other on the back for making the same ad naseum, valueless, stupid ass posts. Harrassing and name calling anyone offering the slightest challenge, cuz you can't f#cking think straight enough to make a reasoned counter argument. So go back, back to your your comfort zone, where it's "safe" for you to come out. Just don't get too comfortable, because remember, whenever I feel like it's for you.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[DC Tom]

"Rarely even notice" me? this from the goofball who loudly boasted how he was going to harrass me off the board and has been following me around ever since. What was that? Over a year & half and 3,000 posts from you ago? Well I'm still here posting away . Descending on you whenever I feel like it, smashing and kicking you in the face with golf spikes on. Exposing you for the impotent, sackless, fragile, waste of breath that you are.

 

Just look no further than this thread. I asked a Jim a question and you uninvited started in on me with:

 

"The content is a half-assed conglomeration of unfounded assumptions and cherry-picked facts designed to elicit a specific response in the reader, not to inform. In other words: it's an editorial, not news.

 

It also illustrates your idiocy: you THINK you're informed, simply because you read "alternative" news sources, that provide the "information" the mass media doesn't report. All that does is make you contrarian. "Contrarian" isn't "informed" - disagreeing with the common wisdom doesn't make you smarter, it just makes you disagreeable. You can still disagree and be an inveterate moron.

 

As you so amply demonstrate."

 

---------------

 

Since your credibility was shot right from the opening sentence of your latest post, I won't even bother addressing the rest of the inane, poorly conceived nonsense. Matter of fact, you're such a waste of time, I'll probably leave you alone again, for the time being anyway. Let you go back to your small circle of admirers with similar mental limitations and damaged psyches. Patting each other on the back for making the same ad naseum, valueless, stupid ass posts. Harrassing and name calling anyone offering the slightest challenge, cuz you can't f#cking think straight enough to make a reasoned counter argument. So go back, back to your your comfort zone, where it's "safe" for you to come out. Just don't get too comfortable, because remember, whenever I feel like it's for you.

 

What? Been drinking?

 

Yes, "rarely" notice you. You quote the first attention I've given you in God-knows-how-long as evidence of the contrary? And then pretend that, because that lacks credibility (like I give a **** whether or not you think I'm credible), you're ignore the rest?

 

By the way, did you even read the part of your article where it claims the actual defense spending is greater than a trillion dollars...by adding non-defense spending in such as the State Department budget or service member's pensions? Yeah, didn't think so...and I doubt you're even smart enough to question that (and definitely not smart enough to question why the National Guard's state funding isn't included).

 

Yeah, you're a real braniac. It's not even remotely possible that you're ignoring the rest of my previous post because...well, I'm right about you, and you can't respond.