When Ann Coulter is the one keepin it real....
-
Did I? You and I were conversing, then dick head decided to jump in and be some kind of action hero.
I realize it won't make an iota of difference, but an exchange of reasonable ideas, striking a conversation, etc etc... is always fine. Posting on about football won't make an iota of difference either, but we do it because we enjoy the exchange.
edit: Also, I'm not mad. Mad isn't something I get often. Annoyed? Possibly. Mad? nah.
On the football side of this forum we have some excellent football minds and like Cal I read them more than I post because I know my limitations. I never got beyond playing HS football and I think there are some who post on the football side who have much more credentials than I have. Even in HS I was a defensive end with a number 15 jersey. How did that happen? When we got our jersey numbers I looked at the big lines and since I hate waiting in line (and I had such a good football mind) I got in the smallest line (which I found later was for the quarterbacks LOL).
Cal may not have played football but he has made some excellent football posts. I've read them . Sometimes a good story is not all about the x's and the o's. That can get boring. Cal is a story teller and sometimes that is a nice break from diagnosing plays. I respect those who have the ability on the football side to grade lineman and diagnose plays and such but variety is the spice of life. And that takes me to the political side where I have no qualms about posting. Someone like Cal is what makes this political side not be boring. When it comes to the constitution and constitutional matters I don't think there is anyone on the political side more knowledgeable than Cal.
Someone like Cal is what makes this political side not be boring. When it comes to the constitution and constitutional matters I don't think there is anyone on the political side more knowledgeable than Cal.
You're conflating "not boring" for inflammatory. But then again, millions anymore do. This is the same mentality 'he who shall not be named but is now banned' thrived on over on the football side.
We'll strongly agree to disagree.
-
Someone like Cal is what makes this political side not be boring. When it comes to the constitution and constitutional matters I don't think there is anyone on the political side more knowledgeable than Cal.
You're conflating "not boring" for inflammatory. But then again, millions anymore do. This is the same mentality 'he who shall not be named but is now banned' thrived on over on the football side.
We'll strongly agree to disagree.
You're conflating "not boring" for inflammatory. But then again, millions anymore do. This is the same mentality 'he who shall not be named but is now banned' thrived on over on the football side.
We'll strongly agree to disagree.
We can't control what others say and do but what we can control is how we react to what others say and do. You can choose to not let what someone says be inflammatory to you. We choose our own emotions most of the time. Anger is a choice.
Speaking of Ghoulie I found I can learn things from people I might not necessarily agree with most of the time if I keep an open mind. One thing I learned from Ghoulie was what he was constantly talking about: the need for the Browns to have play makers. Since we always had so many holes to fill I was usually looking at quantity vs quality but as we have seen recently with Baker Mayfield and some others with the Browns today that having play makers makes all the difference. That is one reason I hated to see us lose Duke Johnson.
adjective-
1.relating to or causing inflammation of a part of the body.
synonyms: causing inflammation, causing swelling; More -
2.(especially of speech or writing) arousing or intended to arouse angry or violent feelings."inflammatory slogans"
synonyms: provocative, provoking, inflaming, incendiary, inciting, agitating, agitational, stirring, rousing, instigative, fomenting; More
-
-
You're conflating "not boring" for inflammatory. But then again, millions anymore do. This is the same mentality 'he who shall not be named but is now banned' thrived on over on the football side.
We'll strongly agree to disagree.
We can't control what others say and do but what we can control is how we react to what others say and do. You can choose to not let what someone says be inflammatory to you. We choose our own emotions most of the time. Anger is a choice.
Speaking of Ghoulie I found I can learn things from people I might not necessarily agree with most of the time if I keep an open mind. One thing I learned from Ghoulie was what he was constantly talking about: the need for the Browns to have play makers. Since we always had so many holes to fill I was usually looking at quantity vs quality but as we have seen recently with Baker Mayfield and some others with the Browns today that having play makers makes all the difference. That is one reason I hated to see us lose Duke Johnson.
adjective-
1.relating to or causing inflammation of a part of the body.
synonyms: causing inflammation, causing swelling; More -
2.(especially of speech or writing) arousing or intended to arouse angry or violent feelings."inflammatory slogans"
synonyms: provocative, provoking, inflaming, incendiary, inciting, agitating, agitational, stirring, rousing, instigative, fomenting; More
We can't control what others say and do but what we can control is how we react to what others say and do. You can choose to not let what someone says be inflammatory to you. We choose our own emotions most of the time. Anger is a choice.
Speaking of Ghoulie I found I can learn things from people I might not necessarily agree with most of the time if I keep an open mind. One thing I learned from Ghoulie was what he was constantly talking about: the need for the Browns to have play makers. Since we always had so man- y holes to fill I was usually looking at quantity vs quality but as we have seen recently with Baker Mayfield and some others with the Browns today that having play makers makes all the difference. That is one reason I hated to see us lose Duke Johnson.
adjective-
1.relating to or causing inflammation of a part of the body.
synonyms: causing inflammation, causing swelling; More -
2.(especially of speech or writing) arousing or intended to arouse angry or violent feelings."inflammatory slogans"
synonyms: provocative, provoking, inflaming, incendiary, inciting, agitating, agitational, stirring, rousing, instigative, fomenting; More
- Generally that means agreeing with the message. Even if the message is patently false, or abhorrent.
- Ghoulies incessant whining about "playmakers" was both incredibly obvious yet incredibly vague and false at the same time. Mostly because, while you do need NFL quality players to run, catch, cover and tackle - you cannot do so with maximum effectiveness without having a quality NFL line. So he may have stumbled his fatass into something that was inherently rather correct, but like bad math, his formula of arrival was all wrong. Meanwhile, the other half of the time he invalidated what little he wasn't terribly off about by being WILDLY off on most other assessments about personnel and positions. It takes no football genius to see the Browns needed talent and weren't very good. Ghoulie wasn't here to educate or point out obvious, he was here for his self gratification, trolling and those things alone.
-
-
well, I humbly have often admitted I never played. I was never allowed to. Like I've stated in the past, I was even not allowed to be drafted because of my knee which was reconstructed the summer after the ninth grade.
But I enlisted anyways 2.5 yrs after being 2A. They weren't going to let me enlist then either, but I talked em into it.
The trouble with the internet, if you knew more about me, you'd be surprised how wrong you are.
FYI - I am a few sheets of paper width from 5'9", still short. But I have lived my life differently since I very nearly died when I was a kid, there are a few stories only close friends ever know. God really is there. Okay, so I'm goin on a diet so we can hike a lot easier next year with friends at Yellowstone.
Toward the end of my enlistment, I was actively recruited to join OSI. The "NCIS" of the Air Force. You don't get that by being tall enough to play football, Tiam. I spent four years with an excellent record on a bad knee. I know far more about heart, love for the game, character, toughness, honor, integrity, love for my country, and love for life than you may ever know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_Office_of_Special_Investigations
I said you don't understand "heart" etc because I see your picks in the draft reflect it. You bicker about numbers and stats and fail to take into consideration the other players around a player, and the level of competition they face.
Leave it to you, and you would never have taken Jack Lambert seriously. "small program" "no big league competition"..."too skinny"...that has been you in the past. Mind you, I helped Gary PInkel get extra tickets one year- I knew people. He was Jack Lambert's roommate. They both stopped by to pick up the extra tickets ... they were both stars in college....
Obviously, you know about Lambert. You know about Gary PInkel? He was a really great guy - you know about him?
I don't think he was ever drafted... but he became a famous successful college head coach.
https://www.garypinkel.com/bio/
but I was closely watching football since I was a kid.
So, what happened, belligerent boy? you shortly played in college...and ....quit? got injured? That makes you superior to everybody else who didn't play? Like Woody is "superior" because of his education in engineering (alleged)?
And I will darn good and well lecture your xo highness any freakin time I want to. Yes, I'm older - and mucho wiser.
You never post like you understand "heart" etc.
-
is cal suggesting jack lambert wasnt taken seriously coming out of college? cause i thought he went late 1st roind but looked it up it was 2nd round. Must have been on some peoples radars.....
-
well, I humbly have often admitted I never played. I was never allowed to. Like I've stated in the past, I was even not allowed to be drafted because of my knee which was reconstructed the summer after the ninth grade.
But I enlisted anyways 2.5 yrs after being 2A. They weren't going to let me enlist then either, but I talked em into it.
The trouble with the internet, if you knew more about me, you'd be surprised how wrong you are.
FYI - I am a few sheets of paper width from 5'9", still short. But I have lived my life differently since I very nearly died when I was a kid, there are a few stories only close friends ever know. God really is there. Okay, so I'm goin on a diet so we can hike a lot easier next year with friends at Yellowstone.
Toward the end of my enlistment, I was actively recruited to join OSI. The "NCIS" of the Air Force. You don't get that by being tall enough to play football, Tiam. I spent four years with an excellent record on a bad knee. I know far more about heart, love for the game, character, toughness, honor, integrity, love for my country, and love for life than you may ever know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_Office_of_Special_Investigations
I said you don't understand "heart" etc because I see your picks in the draft reflect it. You bicker about numbers and stats and fail to take into consideration the other players around a player, and the level of competition they face.
Leave it to you, and you would never have taken Jack Lambert seriously. "small program" "no big league competition"..."too skinny"...that has been you in the past. Mind you, I helped Gary PInkel get extra tickets one year- I knew people. He was Jack Lambert's roommate. They both stopped by to pick up the extra tickets ... they were both stars in college....
Obviously, you know about Lambert. You know about Gary PInkel? He was a really great guy - you know about him?
I don't think he was ever drafted... but he became a famous successful college head coach.
https://www.garypinkel.com/bio/
but I was closely watching football since I was a kid.
So, what happened, belligerent boy? you shortly played in college...and ....quit? got injured? That makes you superior to everybody else who didn't play? Like Woody is "superior" because of his education in engineering (alleged)?
And I will darn good and well lecture your xo highness any freakin time I want to. Yes, I'm older - and mucho wiser.
You never post like you understand "heart" etc.
-
Clevis, the mentally challenged of the BB.
-
Clevis, the mentally challenged of the BB.
Clevis, the mentally challenged of the BB.
yes, he is. I was referring to how Tiam is a numbers/stats guy who has criticized some players for
superficial reasons, when they turn out to be terrific players. HE would have underestimated Lambert by
the same criteria he's used on other players.
It was easy for anybody to follow - even Woody, but no - Clevis takes it completely weird.
-
He still is. You don't suddenly swap after being of one political leaning for 50 years.
Uh no he's not.
And yes you can. And it's getting more easier and easier.
-
Me: *reads post*
Me: * looking around * still sees massive violations of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments along with increased debt and deficit.
Yep...."conservative"
unlike your obaMao commie, Pres Trump doesn't see himself as a dicktater. The growing debt is the fault of both parties in Congress - a president can only do so much - to try to influence them.
and I'm sure that your understanding of football helps you understand the nuances of our legal system, especially concerning Constitutionality.
Did you know there isn't any mention of football in our Constitution/Bill of Rights?
unlike your obaMao commie, Pres Trump doesn't see himself as a dicktater. The growing debt is the fault of both parties in Congress - a president can only do so much - to try to influence them.
Per the Constitution, Congress creates the bills that are driving up the debt. Also per the constitution, Trump has the power to veto said bills. He did not, and signed off on them, so he's just as responsible for increasing the debt during his administration as Congress is. This is basic Civics 101 stuff. I would think a "real" American such as yourself would know that...
-
unlike your obaMao commie, Pres Trump doesn't see himself as a dicktater. The growing debt is the fault of both parties in Congress - a president can only do so much - to try to influence them.
Per the Constitution, Congress creates the bills that are driving up the debt. Also per the constitution, Trump has the power to veto said bills. He did not, and signed off on them, so he's just as responsible for increasing the debt during his administration as Congress is. This is basic Civics 101 stuff. I would think a "real" American such as yourself would know that...
Per the Constitution, Congress creates the bills that are driving up the debt. Also per the constitution, Trump has the power to veto said bills. He did not, and signed off on them, so he's just as responsible for increasing the debt during his administration as Congress is. This is basic Civics 101 stuff. I would think a "real" American such as yourself would know that...
nice of you to drop in and try a "gotcha" again, as usual. However, most all of us know that it is only the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
that create spending bills. NOT both houses of Congress. See, I can back up what I say with an on-point link:
https://history.house.gov/institution/origins-development/power-of-the-purse/
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1
************************************************Pres Trump can indeed, veto a bill. But Congress can override his veto. The trouble starts with your corrupt dems blaming Pres Trump for a "shutdown" of government, that they create with their political corruption attack mode. Which has been done before.
It makes no sense to veto if you figure it will be overridden, so he went with it for the gains he wanted. The trouble is, the other side gains what they wanted.
Which ends up raising out debt again. It's damage to our future. We could crash in a huge way.
Which plays right into the hands of your democratic/socialist/revolutionary permanent power hungry sombeitch party.
CLOWARD-PIVEN. (yay, I got to bring it up again !) and it doesn't sound silly anymore. No more "socialists in the democratic party haha"
He who "haha"s hahas best.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a socialist system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".[1][2]
So much for your silly claim of "CIvics 101" stuff.
-
Per the Constitution, Congress creates the bills that are driving up the debt. Also per the constitution, Trump has the power to veto said bills. He did not, and signed off on them, so he's just as responsible for increasing the debt during his administration as Congress is. This is basic Civics 101 stuff. I would think a "real" American such as yourself would know that...
nice of you to drop in and try a "gotcha" again, as usual. However, most all of us know that it is only the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
that create spending bills. NOT both houses of Congress. See, I can back up what I say with an on-point link:
https://history.house.gov/institution/origins-development/power-of-the-purse/
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1
************************************************Pres Trump can indeed, veto a bill. But Congress can override his veto. The trouble starts with your corrupt dems blaming Pres Trump for a "shutdown" of government, that they create with their political corruption attack mode. Which has been done before.
It makes no sense to veto if you figure it will be overridden, so he went with it for the gains he wanted. The trouble is, the other side gains what they wanted.
Which ends up raising out debt again. It's damage to our future. We could crash in a huge way.
Which plays right into the hands of your democratic/socialist/revolutionary permanent power hungry sombeitch party.
CLOWARD-PIVEN. (yay, I got to bring it up again !) and it doesn't sound silly anymore. No more "socialists in the democratic party haha"
He who "haha"s hahas best.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a socialist system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".[1][2]
So much for your silly claim of "CIvics 101" stuff.
nice of you to drop in and try a "gotcha" again, as usual. However, most all of us know that it is only the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
that create spending bills. NOT both houses of Congress. See, I can back up what I say with an on-point link:
https://history.house.gov/institution/origins-development/power-of-the-purse/
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1
************************************************Pres Trump can indeed, veto a bill. But Congress can override his veto. The trouble starts with your corrupt dems blaming Pres Trump for a "shutdown" of government, that they create with their political corruption attack mode. Which has been done before.
It makes no sense to veto if you figure it will be overridden, so he went with it for the gains he wanted. The trouble is, the other side gains what they wanted.
Which ends up raising out debt again. It's damage to our future. We could crash in a huge way.
Which plays right into the hands of your democratic/socialist/revolutionary permanent power hungry sombeitch party.
CLOWARD-PIVEN. (yay, I got to bring it up again !) and it doesn't sound silly anymore. No more "socialists in the democratic party haha"
He who "haha"s hahas best.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a socialist system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".[1][2]
So much for your silly claim of "CIvics 101" stuff.
Last time I checked, the House of Representatives was a part of the Congress, and a concept called "generalization" was still a thing, so you're not really pulling the "gotcha" you think you are.
Secondly, if Trump was serious about deficit reduction, he'd have vetoed the spending bills presented to him. Sure, Congress would've very likely had his veto overridden, but then the growing deficit would've been on them, not Trump. By signing off on the deficit-increasing bills, Trump has become just as culpable as Congress is for increasing the defict. This is Trump's baby now.
"That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”. - Christopher Hitchens "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you". - Neil deGrasse Tyson -
nice of you to drop in and try a "gotcha" again, as usual. However, most all of us know that it is only the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
that create spending bills. NOT both houses of Congress. See, I can back up what I say with an on-point link:
https://history.house.gov/institution/origins-development/power-of-the-purse/
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1
************************************************Pres Trump can indeed, veto a bill. But Congress can override his veto. The trouble starts with your corrupt dems blaming Pres Trump for a "shutdown" of government, that they create with their political corruption attack mode. Which has been done before.
It makes no sense to veto if you figure it will be overridden, so he went with it for the gains he wanted. The trouble is, the other side gains what they wanted.
Which ends up raising out debt again. It's damage to our future. We could crash in a huge way.
Which plays right into the hands of your democratic/socialist/revolutionary permanent power hungry sombeitch party.
CLOWARD-PIVEN. (yay, I got to bring it up again !) and it doesn't sound silly anymore. No more "socialists in the democratic party haha"
He who "haha"s hahas best.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a socialist system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".[1][2]
So much for your silly claim of "CIvics 101" stuff.
Last time I checked, the House of Representatives was a part of the Congress, and a concept called "generalization" was still a thing, so you're not really pulling the "gotcha" you think you are.
Secondly, if Trump was serious about deficit reduction, he'd have vetoed the spending bills presented to him. Sure, Congress would've very likely had his veto overridden, but then the growing deficit would've been on them, not Trump. By signing off on the deficit-increasing bills, Trump has become just as culpable as Congress is for increasing the defict. This is Trump's baby now.
Last time I checked, the House of Representatives was a part of the Congress, and a concept called "generalization" was still a thing, so you're not really pulling the "gotcha" you think you are.
Secondly, if Trump was serious about deficit reduction, he'd have vetoed the spending bills presented to him. Sure, Congress would've very likely had his veto overridden, but then the growing deficit would've been on them, not Trump. By signing off on the deficit-increasing bills, Trump has become just as culpable as Congress is for increasing the defict. This is Trump's baby now.
The main fault for me lies with the fillibuster rule in the senate. That has given us a situation where to get spending bills passed both sides get all the spending they want. Even when republicans controlled all three branches of government they could not pass the spending bills they wanted due to a democrat ability to fillibuster. So now both sides must compromise to get a bill passed but the idea of compromising seems to be that both sides get all the spending they want which is always over spending.
-
Last time I checked, the House of Representatives was a part of the Congress, and a concept called "generalization" was still a thing, so you're not really pulling the "gotcha" you think you are.
Secondly, if Trump was serious about deficit reduction, he'd have vetoed the spending bills presented to him. Sure, Congress would've very likely had his veto overridden, but then the growing deficit would've been on them, not Trump. By signing off on the deficit-increasing bills, Trump has become just as culpable as Congress is for increasing the defict. This is Trump's baby now.
The main fault for me lies with the fillibuster rule in the senate. That has given us a situation where to get spending bills passed both sides get all the spending they want. Even when republicans controlled all three branches of government they could not pass the spending bills they wanted due to a democrat ability to fillibuster. So now both sides must compromise to get a bill passed but the idea of compromising seems to be that both sides get all the spending they want which is always over spending.
The main fault for me lies with the fillibuster rule in the senate. That has given us a situation where to get spending bills passed both sides get all the spending they want. Even when republicans controlled all three branches of government they could not pass the spending bills they wanted due to a democrat ability to fillibuster. So now both sides must compromise to get a bill passed but the idea of compromising seems to be that both sides get all the spending they want which is always over spending.
Filibustering has been a part of the Senate nearly since it was first created; the GOP has employed it numerous times when they had the majority in the Senate.
-
The main fault for me lies with the fillibuster rule in the senate. That has given us a situation where to get spending bills passed both sides get all the spending they want. Even when republicans controlled all three branches of government they could not pass the spending bills they wanted due to a democrat ability to fillibuster. So now both sides must compromise to get a bill passed but the idea of compromising seems to be that both sides get all the spending they want which is always over spending.
Filibustering has been a part of the Senate nearly since it was first created; the GOP has employed it numerous times when they had the majority in the Senate.
Filibustering has been a part of the Senate nearly since it was first created; the GOP has employed it numerous times when they had the majority in the Senate.
Usually it is a tactic used by the minority party. It has given us this situation where compromise must happen to pass spending bills but it seems compromise is just both sides getting all the spending they want. If the majority has a 60 plus majority they could over ride a filibuster but usually that threshold is not met. Obama had that luxury the first two years of his presidency.
-
Filibustering has been a part of the Senate nearly since it was first created; the GOP has employed it numerous times when they had the majority in the Senate.
Usually it is a tactic used by the minority party. It has given us this situation where compromise must happen to pass spending bills but it seems compromise is just both sides getting all the spending they want. If the majority has a 60 plus majority they could over ride a filibuster but usually that threshold is not met. Obama had that luxury the first two years of his presidency.
Usually it is a tactic used by the minority party. It has given us this situation where compromise must happen to pass spending bills but it seems compromise is just both sides getting all the spending they want.
Compromise was designed into the Constitution by the founding fathers. Blame them. The fact is, Trump has had every opportunity to make his disagreement with Congress over increasing the debt know (presidential veto). Even if they overrode him in the end, the debt increase would be on them, not Trump. But Trump is not a fiscal conservative, and because he puts on a façade of believing in the Jebus, he's bamboozled the simple minded into abandoning conservative principles such as fiscal responsibility.
"That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”. - Christopher Hitchens "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you". - Neil deGrasse Tyson -
God bless you Jbluh. May a meme shine down upon you.
-
Usually it is a tactic used by the minority party. It has given us this situation where compromise must happen to pass spending bills but it seems compromise is just both sides getting all the spending they want.
Compromise was designed into the Constitution by the founding fathers. Blame them. The fact is, Trump has had every opportunity to make his disagreement with Congress over increasing the debt know (presidential veto). Even if they overrode him in the end, the debt increase would be on them, not Trump. But Trump is not a fiscal conservative, and because he puts on a façade of believing in the Jebus, he's bamboozled the simple minded into abandoning conservative principles such as fiscal responsibility.
Compromise was designed into the Constitution by the founding fathers. Blame them. The fact is, Trump has had every opportunity to make his disagreement with Congress over increasing the debt know (presidential veto). Even if they overrode him in the end, the debt increase would be on them, not Trump. But Trump is not a fiscal conservative, and because he puts on a façade of believing in the Jebus, he's bamboozled the simple minded into abandoning conservative principles such as fiscal responsibility.
Trump's tax cuts have spurred the economy to where Obama tries to take credit for it. Obama gave us the debt just not the good economy. Is there anyone running for president on the dem side in 2020 that you see cutting the national debt? Not with what they are proposing. They try to say they will just tax the rich and everyone else will get the freebies but only the simple minded believe that. There aren't enough wealthy people to pay for what they are proposing.
-
nice of you to drop in and try a "gotcha" again, as usual. However, most all of us know that it is only the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
that create spending bills. NOT both houses of Congress. See, I can back up what I say with an on-point link:
https://history.house.gov/institution/origins-development/power-of-the-purse/
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1
************************************************Pres Trump can indeed, veto a bill. But Congress can override his veto. The trouble starts with your corrupt dems blaming Pres Trump for a "shutdown" of government, that they create with their political corruption attack mode. Which has been done before.
It makes no sense to veto if you figure it will be overridden, so he went with it for the gains he wanted. The trouble is, the other side gains what they wanted.
Which ends up raising out debt again. It's damage to our future. We could crash in a huge way.
Which plays right into the hands of your democratic/socialist/revolutionary permanent power hungry sombeitch party.
CLOWARD-PIVEN. (yay, I got to bring it up again !) and it doesn't sound silly anymore. No more "socialists in the democratic party haha"
He who "haha"s hahas best.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a socialist system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".[1][2]
So much for your silly claim of "CIvics 101" stuff.
Last time I checked, the House of Representatives was a part of the Congress, and a concept called "generalization" was still a thing, so you're not really pulling the "gotcha" you think you are.
Secondly, if Trump was serious about deficit reduction, he'd have vetoed the spending bills presented to him. Sure, Congress would've very likely had his veto overridden, but then the growing deficit would've been on them, not Trump. By signing off on the deficit-increasing bills, Trump has become just as culpable as Congress is for increasing the defict. This is Trump's baby now.
Last time I checked, the House of Representatives was a part of the Congress, and a concept called "generalization" was still a thing, so you're not really pulling the "gotcha" you think you are.
Secondly, if Trump was serious about deficit reduction, he'd have vetoed the spending bills presented to him. Sure, Congress would've very likely had his veto overridden, but then the growing deficit would've been on them, not Trump. By signing off on the deficit-increasing bills, Trump has become just as culpable as Congress is for increasing the defict. This is Trump's baby now.
oh, then Tiam will be happy to know that all the players on the football team play quarterback, mr. "generalization" lol
if Trump vetoes it, he will be shutting down the gov, LIKE I SAID.
I gave you the correct explanation, with a valid reference, proving my point. You don't have diddley except to say you were just "generalizing" ???
of course, the House bickers with a president of the opposite part. It happens. and it never stops the deficit, too bad for America - which is us.
read:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/22/government-shutdown-deal-democrats-lose-355997
Dec 27, 2018 - On Day 6 of the partial government shutdown, House members were told ... not letting Donald Trump & the Republicans have a win,” he wrote.Dec 31, 2018 - “We've got to really learn how to play jujitsu with the president and ... For newly elected Democrats, having the shutdown languish into the new ...
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login