- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,987
- Reaction score
- 60,545
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
How about the CRS, is that good enough?
Ain't that nice....
j-mac
Hey look, quote out of context...
How about the CRS, is that good enough?
Ain't that nice....
j-mac
Ah politifact....The St. Pete times that was looked at for this and concluded that their editorial desk was Waaaaaaaay too involved with the supposed Fact Check to be honest....Again. Biased.
j-mac
you seem very hostile lately. can bachmann prove her assertions? your source seems just a tad biased, btw.
Bachmann's also not the first person to point this out. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, tried earlier this year, without success, to block the $105 billion. The money was the subject of a study by Heritage Foundation fellow and former congressman Ernest Istook in late January.
Istook got his figures in large part from a Congressional Research Service report dated Oct. 14 of last year.
Though the information has been floating around in various Washington studies, Istook said the inclusion of up-front spending in the health care law is "extremely unusual."
"I am unaware of any other piece of authorizing legislation that included appropriations at all," he told FoxNews.com.
Istook wrote in January that the inclusion of the money was a major foul on Democrats' part. He accused the bill's authors of bypassing the normal appropriations process to block any future Congress from meddling with the money.
Bachmann Calls on Congress to Block $105B in Health Law Money - FoxNews.com
Hey look, quote out of context...
Let's just be honest. If this were a bill you agreed with you wouldn't give two ****s that the bill actually spent money in order to fund the bill.I am sure that any source that reports on this at all will be called biased by libs. But anyhoo.
So you tell me, would you feel all warm and fuzzy if repubs had a law they did this with?
j-mac
Bachman is an idiot. Everyone knows that. Anything she says is worthless.
Let's just be honest. If this were a bill you agreed with you wouldn't give two ****s that the bill actually spent money in order to fund the bill.
As long as you argue from the position that this money, that was in multiple versions of the bill and was scored by the CBO and wasn't tossed in at the last minute, was "hidden" in the bill then I think that proves you aren't here for honest debate and I'd rather not waste my time debating something that really should be plainly obvious to you.
To the libs in here thinking they are funny or something....This is serious business, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid hid appropriations in this law that are illegal, and bypass the legal channels to fund their crap plan. So instead of the usual attacking of the person telling us about what is to be discussed ie: Bachmann can you snarky little libs talk about the 105 billion, you know the actual topic of the thread?
j-mac
What lying little deceptive cretins demo's are. Poison pills loaded in that 2,700 page pile of dung. No wonder we couldn't find out what's in the bill until we passed the bill..eh Nan?
j-mac
They don't care, Mac. Their collective stupidity is always on display. They would rather try and win a pissing match than look at reality. Impressive, huh?
The money wasn't "secretly spent," follow the link is my previous post.So if it turns out that money was secretly spent on a bill that turns out to be ruled unconstitutional, and Obama ignored that ruling altogether.......
What now?
Politifact knocked this one down:
PolitiFact | Bachmann's $105 billion charge: Was the funding secret?
Study finds PolitiFact rates Republican statements false 3 times the rate of Democrats
A February 2011 study published by the University of Minnesota’s Smart Politics news site, a part of the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, finds a significant bias on the part of PolitiFact in favor of statements made by Democrats: “That means a supermajority of falsehoods documented by PolitiFact over the last year – 76 percent – were attributed to Republicans, with just 22 percent of such statements coming from Democrats.”
A glance at the most recent PolitiFact ratings by the Oregonian would definitely support findings of a pro-Democrat bias.
The University of Minnesota’s Smart Politics study especially calls out “how statements are selected” by PolitiFact: “there remains a fundamental question of which statements (by which politicians) are targeted for analysis in the first place. A Smart Politics content analysis of more than 500 PolitiFact stories from January 2010 through January 2011 finds that current and former Republican officeholders have been assigned substantially harsher grades by the news organization than their Democratic counterparts.”
Study finds significant pro-Democrat bias by PolitiFact | The Oregon Catalyst
There is your first problem believing politifact.
Analysis of the study here:
Smart Politics - Selection Bias? PolitiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at 3 Times the Rate of Democrats
j-mac
Will one of you conservatives who is freaking out about this explain to me how, exactly, this money was "hidden?"
By putting it in the bill?
edit: maybe they're mad they didn't get a certified letter personally informing them?
So it was not in the bill, the CBO manager is lying, and somehow democrats managed to get it in while they where not looking(even though it was in multiple versions of the bill)?
So if it turns out that money was secretly spent on a bill that turns out to be ruled unconstitutional, and Obama ignored that ruling altogether.......
What now?
Except that it turns out the money was openly in the bill, the CBO even made their projections figuring with that money, and the law has been rules to be constitutional as often as unconstitutional. So other than being wrong about every single thing you presented, you got it.
As we all know, lies are always equal. Bob always lies as much Tom. reconizing difference is always a sign of bias. :coffeepap
Just making sure you saw these questions J-mac.
So if it turns out that money was secretly spent on a bill that turns out to be ruled unconstitutional, and Obama ignored that ruling altogether.......
What now?