Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
[mention=90]Buzzrock[/mention], you misunderstood my question.  You claimed "it's silly to say that everyone agrees that it was a resounding success."  I'm asking who said EVERYONE agrees that this was the case?  Obviously at least 40% of the country (incorrectly) thinks it was a massive failure.  

Hair successfully split, you win.
Posted
Like Fox News, the WSJ is owned by the Murdochs and their opinion section reflects that.

They were criticizing Trump and praising Biden on the same subject six months ago.
Posted
2 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

No no no. This division we have now would probably still be here with the continued rise of social media. But the extent of that division is on Trump. I haven’t forgotten anything and frankly wish he would disappear forever. 

Afghanistan hasn’t changed that for me at all. Biden could fuck up continually for 3 more years and it’d never make me hold my nose and vote for Trump (for the first time). 

My whole point here is Biden deserves criticism for the last 3 weeks, but I’m not wishing Trump were still in office. A lot of you are construing my comments to, I guess, come to that conclusion or conclude I’ll jump at the next GOP POTUS candidate. Not necessarily. Again, he deserves criticism because the last 3 weeks have been a disaster. The entire Republican Party is a disaster. 

 

1 hour ago, Dr. Beeper said:

I have no reason to lie.  I’d admit it if I did.  I voted in neither of his elections.  I’ve always thought he was a fraud and self-promoter.  He disgusts me.

@aggie08I’m very concerned with MAGA element of the party. I don’t know if they dominate but they are the loudest and most obnoxious. I won’t vote for anyone associated with him or that supported him or his ideals in the past. 

These are both good posts.

  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Dr. Beeper said:

@aggie08I’m very concerned with MAGA element of the party. I don’t know if they dominate but they are the loudest and most obnoxious. I won’t vote for anyone associated with him or that supported him or his ideals in the past. 

+rep

It may be awhile before you're able to vote R again, then. At least on a federal level.

Posted
8 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

The latest pro-Trump, anti-Biden meme blowing up Facebook:

May be an image of 3 people, people standing and text that says 'A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS'

USA Today fact checked the Biden picture. There is a full video and he checked his watch after the ceremony had ended, not during it. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Dr. Beeper said:

There are plenty of people saying exactly this. Just look back at the previous pages. 

You continue to miss my point, which is not surprising.

Posted
1 hour ago, Buzzrock said:


Hair successfully split, you win.

It wasn't my fucking argument.  Words matter.  They've been twisted into pretzel knots for decades now, and I think it's quite important to demand reasonable accuracy.  Sorry I bother you.

Posted
9 minutes ago, Jhawkmvp said:

USA Today fact checked the Biden picture. There is a full video and he checked his watch after the ceremony had ended, not during it. 

Got a link so I don't have to go fishing?

Posted
4 minutes ago, Jhawkmvp said:

USA Today fact checked the Biden picture. There is a full video and he checked his watch after the ceremony had ended, not during it. 

I’m curious if Jill Biden was just brushing something off of her dress? Good screenshot to create the lie and make it appear that she is holding her hand over her heart if that is the case.

beeper - not that you should care but I’m fairly convinced that you actually take what Trump/MAGA is somewhat seriously. Fwiw I don’t think that Biden should be free from criticism (which is a conclusion that would be easy to draw from my posts here in the same way that I drew the conclusion that you are similar to republicans who “don’t like” all of the reprehensible things that they vote for consistently). 

Posted
3 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Good call.  The best state so far in distribution is actually Texas.  The  worst are NY, Minnesota, South Carolina and Oregon.  

But, but, but Republican Legislatures!!!/Surly Libtard

  • Haha 1
Posted
It wasn't my fucking argument.  Words matter.  They've been twisted into pretzel knots for decades now, and I think it's quite important to demand reasonable accuracy.  Sorry I bother you.

Oh you don’t bother me. I agree. Look at Beeper’s post where he had to unwind several posts full of pretzel logic said about him.
Posted
35 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

You know you’re probably not wrong but I’d attribute his probable one-termer status to his age/health. Otherwise he’d cakewalk to a second term with the fucking GOP state. 

But a big LOL at the notion of “born one-termed” ascribed to Joe Biden. He’s the embodiment of why we need term limits. 

Counterpoint:

You’re a trolling dumbass. Probably with dementia.

Posted
1 hour ago, Jhawkmvp said:

USA Today fact checked the Biden picture. There is a full video and he checked his watch after the ceremony had ended, not during it. 

Is that something that even needs to be fact checked? Any image showing Trump being a respectful leader is obviously fake.

 

Posted
33 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Counterpoint:

You’re a trolling dumbass. Probably with dementia.

Rex is an asshole but he has never taken up the MAGA banner here or on ToS and I am pretty sure he isn't trolling. Trump and MAGA are probably way too Whiskey Tango for his taste.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

Hell even Martha Raddatz was getting after Biden on GMA this morning, and that's about as left-friendly a crew as you'll find.

Ms. Raddatz has deep resources within the Defense world. 

Afghanistan was profitable for War, Inc. All of the profiteers from conflicts are in a tantrum right now.

Their demand - their spice must flow (to satisfy shareholders). 

Posted
20 minutes ago, F250 said:

Rex is an asshole but he has never taken up the MAGA banner here or on ToS and I am pretty sure he isn't trolling. Trump and MAGA are probably way too Whiskey Tango for his taste.

 

I believe you. Just my usual natural reaction lately to perceived stupidity. I’m often wrong of course. 

Posted
I’m honestly not Rex. I know nobody believes that, but whatever. But his base is a little too rambunctious WT for me. So you’re pretty damn close. 
I had my attorney, who’s a few years younger than me, tell me today it was like I was time warped from the 50s to today. It is an apt description - I’m 43, don’t really grasp new technology, and an old school in my ways. I asked him why, and he said it was because I called him while I was taking a dump. 

Ok Rex.
Posted
10 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

What I mean by “selective fiscal conservatism” is that that’s what I believe in. When you need to save the financial world during the Great Recession, you hold your nose and do it. There is so much waste in government spending on both sides of the aisle it’d make any reasonable person not in government sick. 

But that's bullshit. no offense. You want lower taxes, fine. But what you're really saying is that future people should pay for services you receive because you don't value them, except when you do. 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

I don’t care about tax cuts. I don’t want my taxes going up and would rather lack of funding for certain services be addressed by corralling wasteful spending, which is rampant. How is that bullshit?

You don't want your Taxes to go up, meaning, you don't want revenue to cover spending (not even mandatory spending!) you mean, even during periods of economic expansion, at times when the stimulus you're defending actively harms the economy by inflating prices. Tell me more about this "wasteful spending." 


2020_US_Federal_Budget_Infographic.png

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
What comprises mandatory spending?
Waste, anecdotally, is rampant in the defense department. Like really bad. I suspect that extends to every other department - some worse than others. 

You serious? It shows you in a pie chart what comprises mandatory spending.

Also, in the movie Zoolander, male models were recruited as assassins because of their VIP access, physical fitness, and obedience.
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

I wasn’t reading it correctly. I guarantee you we shouldn’t be running a $3.2T deficit. First, PPP is temporary. Second, “mandatory spending” is a number that should be heavily scrutinized. It’s simply not $4.6T. Third, there are other revenue avenues other than increasing the individual tax rate. In sum, I disagree that the answer is to increase taxes, which is seemingly what @Bozo_Casanovasuggests. 

You're right, we don't have to increase overall revenue, just shift who pays what. You know, like making the wealthy actually paying their share.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

I wasn’t reading it correctly. I guarantee you we shouldn’t be running a $3.2T deficit. First, PPP is temporary. Second, “mandatory spending” is a number that should be heavily scrutinized. It’s simply not $4.6T. Third, there are other revenue avenues other than increasing the individual tax rate. In sum, I disagree that the answer is to increase taxes, which is seemingly what @Bozo_Casanovasuggests. 

That's not the point. I don't want higher taxes any more than you do. But cutting them (with the value of the cuts targeted to people at the top) during periods of expansion (as we have 3X since 2000) without concomitant spending cuts (to whatever) is bad policy and its own form of fiscal stumulus, i.e. spending. It's just spending that you like as a direct benefit to you, a benefit that not only makes things worse in the future but makes them worse NOW. It's cute that people who support increasing structural deficits are also crying these crocodile tears about inflation.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Whoa whoa whoa. Are you jumping on this point because you think I’m in favor of a tax cut now?

Or, perhaps more likely, that I voted for past Presidents (really only W) and in effect supported their tax cuts?

Actually neither - I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that you would view a rollback to the rate structure of 2000 as a tax increase. (which it would be, to you and I), rather than a spending cut, which is how I would view it. 
No?

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted

just a reminder that one person's waste is another person's important estuary health monitoring project supporting fishermen and forms an important bulwark against climate change. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Dr. Beeper said:

The Army’s spending is egregiously excessive, wasteful, has no oversight, and provides no estuary health monitoring project supporting fishermen and forms an important bulwark against climate change. 

why do you hate the troops tho?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, elfenix said:

just a reminder that one person's waste is another person's important estuary health monitoring project supporting fishermen and forms an important bulwark against climate change. 

True with military as well. I mean, we don't need the peacetime headcount we have. However, the military is inarguably the largest and single most important vocational and management training system in our society in addition to a crucial public employment and benefits program.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Dr. Beeper said:

I’d view it as an increase, largely because I graduated college in ‘00. 

You’d view it as a spending cut how, exactly?

Because you and I are direct, cash beneficiaries of borrowed money. 

Posted
On 9/1/2021 at 12:45 PM, jimmyjazz said:

The latest pro-Trump, anti-Biden meme blowing up Facebook:

May be an image of 3 people, people standing and text that says 'A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS'

This should be the first and maybe only response needed... 

spacer.png

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1


×
×
  • Create New...