Because Israel doesn't want peace,...and that's why they signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, right?
With the people living on the land that Israel conquered in their illegal war of aggression, dumbass. Try to keep up.
Blow it out your ass, Adolph.
Because having your land and possessions and lives stolen from you 70 years ago entitles you to do the same to others for 70 years. Say hi to Pope Paul IV, Bull Connor, and Francisco Pizarro on your way into hell, you racist Zionist shitbag, you.
but in terms of actually passing a budget, all appropriations bills still start in the House. Whether they use or discard the President's requests is irrelevant to that fact.
Which is irrelevant to the fact that the budget starts with the White House. The appropriations bill is to pay for and to modify said budget.
False. We have extradition treaties with both Venezuela and Malaysia. Either Bush and Carrieles are as subject to extradition as Assange, or your argument is invalid.
And no, it isn't "well known" that the DOJ has a "sealed indictment" against Assange.
And if you knew anything about US law, you'd know better than to believe that nonsense.
Where the Obama administration has subjected reporters to criminal investigations and prosecuted more whisteblowers than all previous administrations times two? If you are so ignorant as to US legal system is and has been working maybe you shouldn't be commenting on the subject.
No display of apples can make my oranges red.
No amount of poutrage is going change the fact that you're wrong. Manning showed how the USG is willing to treat whistleblowers and Padila showed how even civilains are subjected to brutal military prison conditions. And that was before the passage of the NDAA, which allows indefinite military detention without trial.
No, Have you ever heard anyone complain that a Windows 8 tablet or phone felt too much like a desktop?
Because they're too busy complaining that Windows 8 is a shit sandwich? But like I said the first time:
Nevermind that the whole reason Apple took the tablet market from Microsoft is the fact that they didn't try to shoehorn on a desktop OS into a tablet or vice versa.
The tablet and phone market is dominated by Apple and Android, both of which keep keep their UI's entirely separate.
Besides, what is iOS but OSX with a striped down
Did you talk about Neon's and Vipers as if they were equivalent products just because they were both made by Chrysler? They aren't on the same planet, and neither are OS X and iOS in terms of UI.
and a whole bunch of rights removed from the user?
Right? Rights!? That's just being a WATB. No one's holding a gun to your head to buy an iPhone, so if it doesn't do what you want, buy whatever it is that does do what you want.
If you start another non-profit with the same purpose as an established and well reputed organization it is very likely you are an attention whore, corrupt or both.
So Doctors Without Borders are a corrupt attention whoring organization because the Red Cross predates them by a century? You can't have two non-profit hospitals in a metropolitan area? Camp Fire should fold because there are already Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts?
Are you really going to stick by a talking point that's based on nothing more than personal animosity and ad hoc arguments, in a world when there's enough secrecy and government corruption for a thousand Wikileaks and a thousand Cryptomes?
Heritage repudiated that plan long ago after rethinking it.
You mean, after it got embarrassing for Republicans to be frothing at rage at Obama for passing their own plan from their own think tank, so they had to backpedal.
You should give them credit for being able to do so.
If he's a partisan hack with zero temporal awareness, maybe. Heritage was just fine with their plan, years after it had been signed and implemented in Massachusetts under Mitt Romney. But in 2011, after Obomneycare was signed into law but years before it was implemented, they post a mea culpa?
I mean SERIOUSLY? "Troll" for saying BOTH the Republicans and Democrats are sucking eggs right now? When polls show it to be true?
Maybe it's for claiming that a 5% rating is in the same boat as one seven times higher, or for citing the right wing Republican rag, the Moonie Times. Which is about as credible as citing the right wing Democratic rag, DailyKos.
I say the administration exploited the IRS and use it against his political enemies.
And saying you're repeating debunked right wing BS that's been a Zombie Lie for months. Hint: groups on both the left and the right were scrutinized - as they should be to prevent corruption and slush money - and in fact the only group to be denied tax-exempt status was a liberal one.
While you wingers are running around making up stupid bullshit, Obama's getting away with literal (drone) murder.
To repeal or alter it will take a vote in the Legislature comprising majorities in favour in both the House and the Senate plus a signature by the President.
Or: just let it expire rather than constantly re-authorizing it. Then either the House, the Senate, or the White House call kill it, barring a veto override.
If I recall for whatever reason he doesn't have the authority to force the issue because he can't bring them to the states without congress.
That was the charade set up when they "blocked" funds for transferring prisoners. Obama can operate vast spy programs outside of Congressional oversight (Senators learn about this stuff from the paper first) but cannot do a prisoner transfer without express legislative approval first? When he didn't need approval to start a war with Libya and claims he can do with Syria?
Of course iOS and MacOS will converge. Mac is too open. Apple would like to have all it's customers locked into the market place where they receive both money and power as they have 100% say of what 'apps' will and will not ever see the light of day.
Nevermind that the whole reason Apple took the tablet market from Microsoft is the fact that they didn't try to shoehorn on a desktop OS into a tablet or vice versa.
Which does nothing whatsoever to change the fact that Obamcare is a Republican health care plan. Did gun control magically become a conservative Republican goal the day Mike Bloomberg supported it, just because he's a Republican?
No, he made selective portions of the tax cuts permanent, shifting our tax code to the most progressive since the past decade. That's a move to the left, not to the right.
Continuing most of Bush's budget-busting tax cuts is a move to the left on what planet? "Left" would be a wealth tax on top of bringing back 91% tax rates, another fine Republican idea.
Back to the point. This is and always has been a Republican health care plan, from 1992 through Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney signing it into law in 2006 when he was governor, straight through today. You want to talk Democratic plans, you need to talk Public Option. You want to talk "left", that's single payer.
Do your best Bart Simpson impression with a chalkboard until it sinks in.
He had a choice: Donate money to Cryptome or start a competing site with the same purpose but with himself as a figurehead.
I'm guessing he thought he would get laid more by starting Wikileaks.
So that means you are a pretentious douchebag if you ever tried to start your own business, rather than simply donate your time and money to someone else's site?
It absolutely writes it. Are you sure you know what a budget is? A request is not a budget.
It was right there in the first sentence, that the budget starts when the president submits it to Congress. It's also funny that you were hopping up and down at the notion (your words, not mine) that the House was under some obligation to accept the President's budget, right after arguing that the President had to accept the House's budget.
Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, on suspicion of plotting a radiological bomb ("dirty bomb") attack. He was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President George W. Bush designated him an enemy combatant and, arguing that he was not entitled to trial in civilian courts, had him transferred to a military prison. Padilla was held for three and a half years as an "enemy combatant." He was subjected to what were called enhanced interrogation techniques, regarded as torture under International law, including sleep deprivation, shackling and stress positions, the administration of psychotropic drugs, and solitary confinement.[1] After pressure from civil liberties groups, the charge was dropped, and his case was moved to a civilian court.
In the 90s???? You act like ideas/politics/thought is static and doesn't change after decades of situational differences. The Democrats were for slavery back in the 1850s -- does that mean they'd be all on board a slavery bill today??? Clearly current day politicians don't agree with the Heritage bill (which doesn't surprise me since the austerity movement is a relatively new thing), so I have no idea why this is relevant.
Clearly someone is making up ad hoc arguments when the rug has just been pulled out from underneath his storyline. The problem with arguing that 1992 was ancient history is the fact that today's Democrats are far to the right of where the Republicans were then.
Herbert Walker Bush raised taxes to reduce the deficit, whereas Obama made most of Dubbya's tax cuts permanent. H.W. withdrew from Iraq, he didn't try to force regime change the way Obama did in Libya and wants to do in Syria, didn't occupy Iraq for over 5 years like Obama has occupied Afghanistan, and didn't argue that he had the right to blow up anyone anywhere on the planet with drones.
The other reason your ad hoc falls flat is the fact that Obamacare == Romneycare, litearlly. Romneycare was signed into law in 2006, a mere four years before the passage of its bastard son, Obamacare.
It's a Republican plan, and that's just a fact you're going to have to deal with.
That is a fake offer, made in poor faith; they can't promise not to hand him over if he's charged with a crime in the US.
Nonsense. Foreign countries refuse to extradite people to the United States all the time, based on our death penalty and atrocious civil rights record. Given the psychological torture inflicted upon Bradley Manning, and Obama personally intervening to keep a journalist brutally imprisoned in Yemen, any country in the world has a perfectly valid reason refuse to hand over whisteblowers and journalists to the U.S.
If you want to try and run with this "you must extradite" line of reasoning, why don't you start by demanding the State Department turn over Luis Carriles to authorities in Cuba and Venezuela to face trial for bombing air planes. And when will George W. Bush be arrested and turned over to Malaysian authorities?
And since he hasn't been charged with any crime here, they can't even give a conditional promise not to hand him over for a specific charge.
Hardly. U.S. charges would of course be based on Assange's activities at Wikileaks, so it would of course be trivial to make a promise not to extradite for anything having to do with journalism. If the FBI suddenly turns up video and DNA evidence that Assange was a triple ax murderer in Ohio, then they could request extradition for those charges.
It's also well known that the DOJ has a sealed indictment against Assange, which means they have charged him, they just haven't been open about it.
And honestly, as an American, it seems pretty absurd that somebody in his situation would have real fear of charges. No US jury would convict him. Even a jury that hates him would find him "not guilty." The people who leaked to him often committed crimes in the US, but he did not, and since his intent was clearly to act as a journalist, even if he'd been in the US when he did it, his part in it is explicitly protected.
On some other planet where a whisteblower wasn't just handed a longer sentence than eight spies who sold secrets to Russia, for money? Where the only person to do jail time for the Bushco torture program was the person who confirmed it's existence?
What you say sounds like butthurt in response to having your false-framing shot down. I never said Congress is under an obligation to pass the POTUS's budget or that they cannot modify it. The point is that the budget starts with the Executive, not the Legislative.
The end result must still, constitutionally, be an appropriations bill (or series thereof) originating in the House.
The appropriations process fund the federal budget, it doesn't write it.
I see we've reached the part of the conversation when your storyline runs into the wall of reality, and you start throwing out word salads.
Sorry, buddy. Revenues increased during most of Bush's presidency.
Sure, if you ignore those useless tax cuts for the rich adding trillions to the national debt. Funny math you guys have there on Planet Rand.
It was increased spending that ended the surplus, whether as a result of 9/11 spending
Eliminate Bush's wars and Bush's tax cuts and we might still have a surplus. We definitely wouldn't have doubled the national debt.
or the spending party when Dem's took congress and the Senate at the end of 2006
Or the Flying Spaghetti monster attacking New York, as long as we're pulling events that didn't happen out of our asses.
And on budget origination, your reading comprehension leaves a little to be desired. If the President is going to propose a budget, maybe he should propose one that at least gets votes from his own party.
And now we've reached the part of the conversation where your eyes start moving in opposite directions. The Senate, where the majority of the Senators are from 'Obama's own party', have passed a budget. It's the House - not controlled by the Dems - that has been voting down any budget that doesn't defund Obomneycare.
It mostly tells me that Sweden respects the principle of legality more than you do. In Sweden extradition requests are negotiated before a court. What you want is the government to tell the judge what the outcome of such a case should be. That may work in Mother Russia but it doesn't fly in Sweden.
Ooo, look, anther Zombie Lie. The Swedish courts can prevent the government from extraditing someone, but they cannot compel it.
To make this simple for you, if 70 people are paying $1000 a year for a service and the other 30 aren't getting it at all, and then a law makes it so that all 100 people are paying $900 a year, the total spending has increased by about 30% (from $70k to $90k).
So yeah, in that case the "average" spending has increased. But every single person is better off than they were before.
No, every single person is not better off than they were before. Someone making $25k a year pays the same in premiums, deductibles and co-pays as someone making $100k per year. The low wage earner will use less health care, because he cannot afford to, which means he's directly subsidizing the guy making six figures.
They never actually offered anything that Republicans could support
This is sarcasm, yes?
Because the ACA is a Republican plan to it's core.
A cudgel of mandates and relying on for-profit insurance has been the Republican plan since the Heritage Foundation came up with it back in the 90's as the alternative to the Clinton plan. Dole ran on it in '96. Romney implemented it into law in Massachusetts. You want to talk about people who got nothing, you need to talk about Democrats who weren't even considered for a public option, when the PO was a compromise to single payer.
That's it. And supposedly that's still being "unreasonable". If that's unreasonable, why was Obama's delaying of the business mandate not unreasonable? The House isn't asking for a whole hell of alot here -- it's their job to pass a budget and there's an expensive program (to the tune of 200 billion a year) which was passed on purely partisan lines and isn't even favored by the populace.
Slight problem: the mandate is a Republican idea, and has been since the Heritage Foundation came up with it back in the 90's as the right-wing alternative to the Clinton's plan. Which means the Republicans in Congress today are massively full of shit, and bluffing.
If Reid and Obama weren't also a couple of right-wing hacks, they'd call the bluff by submitting a bill that would repeal the mandate entirely.
You mean the tax cut that Barack Obama just made permanent? That one? I got some news.
Yeah, the one he just extended. But Obama's fail does jack and shit, respectively, to change the fact that Clinton left the government with a surplus that was gutted by Bush's tax cuts, and Jack left town.
Newt Gingrich was speaker of the house when we balanced the budget. Spending and taxes originate in the House, and no matter how much Barack Obama wants it to be true, they will never originate in the White House.
But budgets originate with the President, not the House. Jack says "sorry, you lose, teabaggers".
Slashdot Mirror
With the people living on the land that Israel conquered in their illegal war of aggression, dumbass. Try to keep up.
Because having your land and possessions and lives stolen from you 70 years ago entitles you to do the same to others for 70 years. Say hi to Pope Paul IV, Bull Connor, and Francisco Pizarro on your way into hell, you racist Zionist shitbag, you.
Which is irrelevant to the fact that the budget starts with the White House. The appropriations bill is to pay for and to modify said budget.
False. We have extradition treaties with both Venezuela and Malaysia. Either Bush and Carrieles are as subject to extradition as Assange, or your argument is invalid.
Yeah. It is.
Where the Obama administration has subjected reporters to criminal investigations and prosecuted more whisteblowers than all previous administrations times two? If you are so ignorant as to US legal system is and has been working maybe you shouldn't be commenting on the subject.
No amount of poutrage is going change the fact that you're wrong. Manning showed how the USG is willing to treat whistleblowers and Padila showed how even civilains are subjected to brutal military prison conditions. And that was before the passage of the NDAA, which allows indefinite military detention without trial.
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
Because they're too busy complaining that Windows 8 is a shit sandwich? But like I said the first time:
The tablet and phone market is dominated by Apple and Android, both of which keep keep their UI's entirely separate.
Did you talk about Neon's and Vipers as if they were equivalent products just because they were both made by Chrysler? They aren't on the same planet, and neither are OS X and iOS in terms of UI.
Right? Rights!? That's just being a WATB. No one's holding a gun to your head to buy an iPhone, so if it doesn't do what you want, buy whatever it is that does do what you want.
So Doctors Without Borders are a corrupt attention whoring organization because the Red Cross predates them by a century? You can't have two non-profit hospitals in a metropolitan area? Camp Fire should fold because there are already Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts?
Are you really going to stick by a talking point that's based on nothing more than personal animosity and ad hoc arguments, in a world when there's enough secrecy and government corruption for a thousand Wikileaks and a thousand Cryptomes?
You mean, after it got embarrassing for Republicans to be frothing at rage at Obama for passing their own plan from their own think tank, so they had to backpedal.
If he's a partisan hack with zero temporal awareness, maybe. Heritage was just fine with their plan, years after it had been signed and implemented in Massachusetts under Mitt Romney. But in 2011, after Obomneycare was signed into law but years before it was implemented, they post a mea culpa?
Yawn.
Maybe it's for claiming that a 5% rating is in the same boat as one seven times higher, or for citing the right wing Republican rag, the Moonie Times. Which is about as credible as citing the right wing Democratic rag, DailyKos.
And saying you're repeating debunked right wing BS that's been a Zombie Lie for months. Hint: groups on both the left and the right were scrutinized - as they should be to prevent corruption and slush money - and in fact the only group to be denied tax-exempt status was a liberal one.
While you wingers are running around making up stupid bullshit, Obama's getting away with literal (drone) murder.
Or: just let it expire rather than constantly re-authorizing it. Then either the House, the Senate, or the White House call kill it, barring a veto override.
That was the charade set up when they "blocked" funds for transferring prisoners. Obama can operate vast spy programs outside of Congressional oversight (Senators learn about this stuff from the paper first) but cannot do a prisoner transfer without express legislative approval first? When he didn't need approval to start a war with Libya and claims he can do with Syria?
As Sam Seder says, "That's Bullshit."
Nevermind that the whole reason Apple took the tablet market from Microsoft is the fact that they didn't try to shoehorn on a desktop OS into a tablet or vice versa.
Which does nothing whatsoever to change the fact that Obamcare is a Republican health care plan. Did gun control magically become a conservative Republican goal the day Mike Bloomberg supported it, just because he's a Republican?
Continuing most of Bush's budget-busting tax cuts is a move to the left on what planet? "Left" would be a wealth tax on top of bringing back 91% tax rates, another fine Republican idea.
Back to the point. This is and always has been a Republican health care plan, from 1992 through Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney signing it into law in 2006 when he was governor, straight through today. You want to talk Democratic plans, you need to talk Public Option. You want to talk "left", that's single payer.
Do your best Bart Simpson impression with a chalkboard until it sinks in.
So that means you are a pretentious douchebag if you ever tried to start your own business, rather than simply donate your time and money to someone else's site?
It was right there in the first sentence, that the budget starts when the president submits it to Congress. It's also funny that you were hopping up and down at the notion (your words, not mine) that the House was under some obligation to accept the President's budget, right after arguing that the President had to accept the House's budget.
Stones, glass houses:
Clearly someone is making up ad hoc arguments when the rug has just been pulled out from underneath his storyline. The problem with arguing that 1992 was ancient history is the fact that today's Democrats are far to the right of where the Republicans were then.
Herbert Walker Bush raised taxes to reduce the deficit, whereas Obama made most of Dubbya's tax cuts permanent. H.W. withdrew from Iraq, he didn't try to force regime change the way Obama did in Libya and wants to do in Syria, didn't occupy Iraq for over 5 years like Obama has occupied Afghanistan, and didn't argue that he had the right to blow up anyone anywhere on the planet with drones.
The other reason your ad hoc falls flat is the fact that Obamacare == Romneycare, litearlly. Romneycare was signed into law in 2006, a mere four years before the passage of its bastard son, Obamacare.
It's a Republican plan, and that's just a fact you're going to have to deal with.
Nonsense. Foreign countries refuse to extradite people to the United States all the time, based on our death penalty and atrocious civil rights record. Given the psychological torture inflicted upon Bradley Manning, and Obama personally intervening to keep a journalist brutally imprisoned in Yemen, any country in the world has a perfectly valid reason refuse to hand over whisteblowers and journalists to the U.S.
If you want to try and run with this "you must extradite" line of reasoning, why don't you start by demanding the State Department turn over Luis Carriles to authorities in Cuba and Venezuela to face trial for bombing air planes. And when will George W. Bush be arrested and turned over to Malaysian authorities?
Hardly. U.S. charges would of course be based on Assange's activities at Wikileaks, so it would of course be trivial to make a promise not to extradite for anything having to do with journalism. If the FBI suddenly turns up video and DNA evidence that Assange was a triple ax murderer in Ohio, then they could request extradition for those charges.
It's also well known that the DOJ has a sealed indictment against Assange, which means they have charged him, they just haven't been open about it.
On some other planet where a whisteblower wasn't just handed a longer sentence than eight spies who sold secrets to Russia, for money? Where the only person to do jail time for the Bushco torture program was the person who confirmed it's existence?
Where's the contradiction in that to anything I said? Assange didn't betray his source. A drugged up informant did.
What you say sounds like butthurt in response to having your false-framing shot down. I never said Congress is under an obligation to pass the POTUS's budget or that they cannot modify it. The point is that the budget starts with the Executive, not the Legislative.
The appropriations process fund the federal budget, it doesn't write it.
I see we've reached the part of the conversation when your storyline runs into the wall of reality, and you start throwing out word salads.
Sure, if you ignore those useless tax cuts for the rich adding trillions to the national debt. Funny math you guys have there on Planet Rand.
Eliminate Bush's wars and Bush's tax cuts and we might still have a surplus. We definitely wouldn't have doubled the national debt.
Or the Flying Spaghetti monster attacking New York, as long as we're pulling events that didn't happen out of our asses.
And now we've reached the part of the conversation where your eyes start moving in opposite directions. The Senate, where the majority of the Senators are from 'Obama's own party', have passed a budget. It's the House - not controlled by the Dems - that has been voting down any budget that doesn't defund Obomneycare.
Ooo, look, anther Zombie Lie. The Swedish courts can prevent the government from extraditing someone, but they cannot compel it.
No, every single person is not better off than they were before. Someone making $25k a year pays the same in premiums, deductibles and co-pays as someone making $100k per year. The low wage earner will use less health care, because he cannot afford to, which means he's directly subsidizing the guy making six figures.
This is sarcasm, yes?
Because the ACA is a Republican plan to it's core.
A cudgel of mandates and relying on for-profit insurance has been the Republican plan since the Heritage Foundation came up with it back in the 90's as the alternative to the Clinton plan. Dole ran on it in '96. Romney implemented it into law in Massachusetts. You want to talk about people who got nothing, you need to talk about Democrats who weren't even considered for a public option, when the PO was a compromise to single payer.
Slight problem: the mandate is a Republican idea, and has been since the Heritage Foundation came up with it back in the 90's as the right-wing alternative to the Clinton's plan. Which means the Republicans in Congress today are massively full of shit, and bluffing.
If Reid and Obama weren't also a couple of right-wing hacks, they'd call the bluff by submitting a bill that would repeal the mandate entirely.
Yeah, the one he just extended. But Obama's fail does jack and shit, respectively, to change the fact that Clinton left the government with a surplus that was gutted by Bush's tax cuts, and Jack left town.
But budgets originate with the President, not the House. Jack says "sorry, you lose, teabaggers".