pBills Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Yeah, it takes at least a year for a president to truly demonstrate he doesn't give a sh-- about something. Although personally...I thought that with "Don't ask, don't tell", Clinton did a bang-up job proving in thirty days that he didn't give a sh-- about anything. Every other president I can think of, though...about a year. Every President should be given around a year or under in this case with the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 18, 2009 Author Share Posted March 18, 2009 Just your constant blasting of Obama is bad for this and bad for that. Dear god the guy has been in office for what 60 days? And to say he doesn't care about our soldiers. It's all ridiculous. I'll make it simple: There is a man who leads the greatest country in the free world. He signs a bill that gives billions of dollars to Acorn, marsh rats and volcano studies. He is handing out money like Pacman Jones at a strip club. Billions and billions and billions of dollars. Weeks later he tells the military he plans to make war veterans move to capped, private insurance for coverage of war-related injuries and disabilities for the sake of saving a half million dollars. To me, it says one thing: I don't care about our soldiers. It's disgusting. In fact, it's so disgusting, even the Democrats think it's disgusting. I have hard-core freaky lib friends who think it's disgusting. In fact, at this point, the ONLY people who DON'T think it's disgusting is Obama and Emmanuel. So yea, as far as I'm concerned...and I'm fairly certain 99% of the people in the military are concerned...their new commander in chief could give a rat's ass about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I'll make it simple: There is a man who leads the greatest country in the free world. He signs a bill that gives billions of dollars to Acorn, marsh rats and volcano studies. He is handing out money like Pacman Jones at a strip club. Billions and billions and billions of dollars. Weeks later he tells the military he plans to make war veterans move to capped, private insurance for coverage of war-related injuries and disabilities for the sake of saving a half million dollars. To me, it says one thing: I don't care about our soldiers. It's disgusting. In fact, it's so disgusting, even the Democrats think it's disgusting. I have hard-core freaky lib friends who think it's disgusting. In fact, at this point, the ONLY people who DON'T think it's disgusting is Obama and Emmanuel. So yea, as far as I'm concerned...and I'm fairly certain 99% of the people in the military are concerned...their new commander in chief could give a rat's ass about them. First, ACORN got zero dollars in the stimulus bill. Nothing, nada, zip, zero. In fact, they got as much as you did, if it was zero, and maybe a lot less. The issue is that some people with agendas say some companies that may be LIKE Acorn MAY bid to get SOME portion of a small part of the 4.2 billion to fix up houses in poor neighborhoods. That would suck. And the non-partisan watchdog rates it "barely true". We read the fine print from the House version of the stimulus package and saw no money designated for ACORN, or any other specific nonprofit organization. Kirstin Brost, a spokeswoman for the Democratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said the lion's share of the neighborhood stabilization funds would go to local governments. But the authors of the stimulus plan decided to open the process to nonprofits, she said, because they have found that some local governments could not, or were not interested, in participating in the program. "Some local governments were very good and some local governments didn't have the capacity to do it and the money just sat there," Brost said. Under the House plan, nonprofits would be allowed to compete to do some of the work. They would have to prove they are "capable of moving the money out the door quickly and efficiently," Brost said. "They would have to go through stringent competition. They would have to use the money to purchase homes, renovate them and then rent them out or resell them. They couldn't use it for anything else. ... We absolutely have to do something about foreclosed homes." If Democrats were trying to steer money to ACORN, say ACORN leaders, they sure picked an odd way to do it. ACORN has never done this type of foreclosure work, and according to ACORN's chief organizer, they don't plan to. In response to Boehner's statement, ACORN chief organizer Bertha Lewis stated: "We watch with bemusement as he tries to gin up opposition to progressive solutions to America's deep economic crisis by accusing ACORN of doing something we have never done. We have not received neighborhood stabilization funds, have no plans to apply for such funds, and didn't weigh in on the pending rule changes." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...-rebuilding-mo/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ar...dfall-stimulus/ Not to mention that isn't the side of the business that Acorn does that people allegedly had a problem with, which was voter fraud, and nothing to do with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Name one iota of nonsense. Bush is a wanted man in the EU right now. The EU! I'm LMFAO! Those turds can't even control their own societies! Eff the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 18, 2009 Author Share Posted March 18, 2009 First, ACORN got zero dollars in the stimulus bill. Nothing, nada, zip, zero. In fact, they got as much as you did, if it was zero, and maybe a lot less. The issue is that some people with agendas say some companies that may be LIKE Acorn MAY bid to get SOME portion of a small part of the 4.2 billion to fix up houses in poor neighborhoods. That would suck. And the non-partisan watchdog rates it "barely true". http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...-rebuilding-mo/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ar...dfall-stimulus/ Not to mention that isn't the side of the business that Acorn does that people allegedly had a problem with, which was voter fraud, and nothing to do with this. Time will definitely tell, my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Just saw a guy from votevets.org complain about this plan on the NBC nightly news. What's ironic is the guy was pushing for Democrats in '06 and '08. Congratulations, buddy. Your poor judgement is coming back to haunt you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Kelly, you already need a new set of kneepads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Kelly, you already need a new set of kneepads. You know, I may not care much for your politics, Wacka, but I have to begrudgingly admit that you are the Bill Hicks -- no -- dare I say you are the very reincarnation of Lenny Bruce when it comes to biting, witty, insightful, searing comebacks, put-downs and social commentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I just sick of you giving a virtual BJ to the guy. Everything he says is misunderstood according to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I just sick of you giving a virtual BJ to the guy. Everything he says is misunderstood according to you. That's simply because you don't or can't read or think. I think the concept of the veterans benefits being paid by insurance companies is totally stupid and a terrible idea, and he should immediately take it off the table. It was a clear mistake and it wasn't misunderstood, it was just ill-conceived. At first I said I didn't really know the issue. Then after I read a little more I said I want to hear the other side. Then later after seeing more and linking more I said it appears to be stupid after digging a little deeper. And then I concluded it was a bad mistake. And in between I defended his other actions concerning the veterans that were applauded by the veterans groups. And I have repeatedly said things he and his administration have done and said are mistakes, big and small, since before and after the election, before and after the inauguration that weren't misunderstood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 BTW, Obama announced today that he is not seeking that insurance companies pay for veterans benefits after speaking with the American Legion. I just saw Rancid Pelosi announce it on CSPAN. President Obama today abandoned a proposal to bill veterans' private insurance companies for treatment of combat-related injuries after the measure prompted an outcry from veterans service organizations and members of Congress. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/0...r.html?wprss=44 Oh, and his proposal is the largest increase in the VA budget in 30 years, which, if my math is correct, includes Ronald Reagan and both Bushes. That's a lot of spit in their faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Define entitlement From Wiki: Entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits because of rights, or by agreement through law. It also refers, in a more casual sense to someone's belief that one is deserving of some particular reward or benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 BTW, Obama announced today that he is not seeking that insurance companies pay for veterans benefits after speaking with the American Legion. I just saw Rancid Pelosi announce it on CSPAN. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/0...r.html?wprss=44 Oh, and his proposal is the largest increase in the VA budget in 30 years, which, if my math is correct, includes Ronald Reagan and both Bushes. That's a lot of spit in their faces. If he is as pro vet as you say he is but he let the insurance thing goes through shows me that he is either not paying attention or he has no clue what the !@#$ he's doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Yeah, it takes at least a year for a president to truly demonstrate he doesn't give a sh-- about something. Although personally...I thought that with "Don't ask, don't tell", Clinton did a bang-up job proving in thirty days that he didn't give a sh-- about anything. Every other president I can think of, though...about a year. I was actually in the Navy during Clintons reign and he did make quite a few improvements. We saw more pay raises and med reform under him than the military had seen in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 I was actually in the Navy during Clintons reign and he did make quite a few improvements. We saw more pay raises and med reform under him than the military had seen in a while. Heretic! You shut your mouth, don't you know it is the other way around! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Change Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 I was actually in the Navy during Clintons reign and he did make quite a few improvements. We saw more pay raises and med reform under him than the military had seen in a while. Your brain must be fried from all the pole you smoked in the Navy. Actually under Clinton the gap between military and civilian pay rose. Facts suck: http://www.moaa.org/lac/lac_resources/lac_.../lac_paygap.htm What med reform were you talking about? * Sorry about the pole smoking reference...I couldn't help myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Change Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Heretic! You shut your mouth, don't you know it is the other way around! Nice job supporting an incorrect assumption. You da man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Nice job supporting an incorrect assumption. You da man! No. Clinton phucked up the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Change Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 No. Clinton phucked up the military. I didn't say he did. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it? I merely pointed out the his statement that he "saw more pay raises" during the Clinton administration was factually incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 I didn't say he did. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it? I merely pointed out the his statement that he "saw more pay raises" during the Clinton administration was factually incorrect. So you are telling me they didn't see more pay increases during the Clinton regime? Were you alongside them in the Navy too? Who's to the say he didn't see more? You are assuming a lot. Even under Carter, the military COLA's were pretty high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts