• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So Who Won?

Who Won on the Budget Compromise?

  • Total voters
    75
Dickieboy said:
Congress...?
Click to expand...
Tonite, it was the House who voted last..
You tell me...
Article 1, section 7
Click to expand...
you left out spending from the House also in a portion of your post that didn't show--clearly the House is derelict in their duty, at the very least

You already did that, but left out the House starts all spending bills..
They couldn't get 218 votes due to lobbyists .
 
Moot said:
Are white conservatives racist if they vote for conservative whites? If not, then why are liberal blacks considered racist if they vote for liberal blacks?
Click to expand...

This is rich...weren't you just 3 posts ago asserting that the 2010 election results were due to racism? Are you now arguing that it was not?
 
Moot said:
Did you go into a coma after 2008 or are you just becoming politically aware? Because you don't seem very knowledgable on recent history and current events.
Click to expand...

AH...classic

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” ― Socrates

You have yet to provide any FACT to support the varied suppositions...carry on
 
Dickieboy said:
But I thought these 'Koch Conferences' started in ~2003...am I wrong?
Click to expand...
The ones after the 2008 election started in 2009..
Btw, go ahead and deny Cantor's Coup started the night of the election in 2008.
 
Dickieboy said:
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” ― Socrates

You have yet to provide any FACT to support the varied suppositions...carry on
Click to expand...
Socrates had not heard of you TEAts yet, you know, the ones oblivious to Fact and ask questions purpose denying the facts you know to be true.
 
NIMBY said:
Tonite, it was the House who voted last..
Click to expand...
Ok...last...is that important?

you left out spending from the House also in a portion of your post that didn't show--clearly the House is derelict in their duty, at the very least

You already did that, but left out the House starts all spending bills..
Click to expand...

No, I posted a direct quote THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN giving both article and section for your convienence. You, on the other hand, have failed to provide any link, article/section or quote that substantiates your 'spending originates in the House' assertion that has been requested thrice now...

I'll wait...again
 
Dickieboy said:
This is rich...weren't you just 3 posts ago asserting that the 2010 election results were due to racism? ?
Click to expand...

Actually they happened due to Democratic apathy..
That won't be the case next year.
 
Henrin said:
Doesn't really matter. They have to agree to the houses terms.
Click to expand...

I think the house has to compromise. And so they finally did....just tonight, in fact.
 
NIMBY said:
The ones after the 2008 election started in 2009..
Btw, go ahead and deny Cantor's Coup started the night of the election in 2008.
Click to expand...

Why would I deny something I have read to be a fact? It is you who seems unable to detail facts...how's that House spending Constitution quote coming btw?
 
Dickieboy said:
Ok...last...is that important?
Click to expand...
Now it's not important when you're obliviously wrong..
Like as I continue to prove that schools have Concealed-Carry.
 
You quoted me the section already dickie boy..
Dickieboy said:
Why would I deny something I have read to be a fact? It is you who seems unable to detail facts...how's that House spending Constitution quote coming btw?
Click to expand...
 
Moot said:
I think the house has to compromise. And so they finally did....just tonight, in fact.
Click to expand...

You can think whatever you want but there is nothing that tells them they must compromise. If the senate doesn't like what they send up they can vote it down and the house can just turn around and send it back up. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.
 
NIMBY said:
Socrates had not heard of you TEAts yet, you know, the ones oblivious to Fact and ask questions purpose denying the facts you know to be true.
Click to expand...

You mean facts like the Constitution doesn't state spending must originate in the House?...

still waiting...:coffeepap
 
The House compromised on language already in ACA--what a bunch of goofs..
They lost on ALL 17 new items they brought up..
Sequestration was not changed..
Since these deniers are back to denying with their latest spin, time for some salt..
Moot said:
I think the house has to compromise. And so they finally did....just tonight, in fact.
Click to expand...
 
Dickieboy said:
You mean facts like the Constitution doesn't state spending must originate in the House?...

still waiting...:coffeepap
Click to expand...

this bill did originate in the House.....

of course it doesn't contain any of the same text, but somehow it's allowable for the Senate to strip the House text and completely replace it with whatever they want.... as long as they keep the numeric title.
 
You don't
Dickieboy said:
You mean facts like the Constitution doesn't state spending must originate in the House?...
Click to expand...

You don't like the 'meaning' from the Annenberg classroom??
Quibbling over interpretations after the ***-whooping you guys so richly deserve with this pile of disengenious slushy manure
 
Dickieboy said:
AH...classic

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” ― Socrates

You have yet to provide any FACT to support the varied suppositions...carry on
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but Socrates was talking about you. You did dismiss my arguement and call it conspiracy theory, which is a slanderous and cheap attempt to avoid the debate that you have obviously lost because the facts aren't on your side and neither is history. Now go ahead and post in caps and post all your little smiley's and pretend you know more than you really do....we've all seen your act before.
 
NIMBY said:
You don't like the 'meaning' from the Annenberg classroom??
Quibbling over interpretations after the ***-whooping you guys so richly deserve with this pile of disengenious slushy manure
Click to expand...

The Annenberg classroom defines 'spending' as 'revenue'? If so no, I don't.

Yep, ass-whooping...relish in it! As to YOUR ass-whooping in this thread, yeah I would be trying desperately to change the subject too...:lamo
 
Thrilla said:
this bill did originate in the House
Click to expand...
and it was promptly assigned to the recyle bin
of course it doesn't contain any of the same text
Click to expand...
nor should it
somehow it's allowable for the Senate to strip the House text
Click to expand...
How would that be as dickie boy would ask??
and completely replace it with whatever they want
Click to expand...
thank goodness the Senate did!!The House really doesn't need to come back since they've trashed their own Speaker's bills all year
 
Moot said:
Excuse me, but Socrates was talking about you. You did dismiss my arguement and call it conspiracy theory, which is a slanderous and cheap attempt to avoid the debate that you have obviously lost because the facts aren't on your side and neither is history. Now go ahead and post in caps and post all your little smiley's and pretend you know more than you really do....we've all seen your act before.
Click to expand...

Which facts are those? Didn't the GOP win in the 2010 election? Didn't the President describe it as a 'shellacking'? My conspiracy theory assertion was after you brought out a list of unrelated topics (Freedomworks, Heritage, etc.) even claiming erroneously that Kock's founded it...and now you claim I don't have facts on my side...yeah the 'act' is obvious to anyone willing to see.
 
Dickieboy said:
The Annenberg classroom defines 'spending' as 'revenue'? If so no, I don't.

Yep, ass-whooping...relish in it! As to YOUR ass-whooping in this thread, yeah I would be trying desperately to change the subject too...:lamo
Click to expand...

spending on a budget is not defined as collecting revenue..you lose in your image of overtime..
to others, you were 40-pointed and there was a rolling clock
 
NIMBY said:
...How would that be as dickie boy would ask??...
Click to expand...

You still don't get it...it was YOUR assertion that spending bills must start in the House. I stated that only REVENUE bills must begin there and substantiated it with the USC article/section. What passed tonight was a SPENDING bill which, as stated previously, can originate in either house. It is currently YOUR challenge to prove that SPENDING bills must originate in the House.

still waiting...
 
NIMBY said:
spending on a budget is not defined as collecting revenue..
Click to expand...
True...which is why this bill can/could originate in either house...

you lose in your image of overtime..
to others, you were 40-pointed and there was a rolling clock
Click to expand...
WTF does this mean?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom