RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Sinergy -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 5:45:30 PM)

 
Thanks for the link, TreasureKY.  I had the acronym wrong.  It is CR.  I took the libery of quoting from YOUR link.  (I am assuming that you did not bother to actually read the link you posted)
Continuing Resolution: Appropriations legislation enacted by Congress to provide
temporary budget authority for Federal agencies to keep them in operation when
their regular appropriation bill has not been enacted by the start of the fiscal year.
A continuing resolution is a joint resolution, which has the same legal status as a
bill.
A continuing resolution frequently specifies a maximum rate at which obligations
may be incurred, based on the rate of the prior year, the President’s budget request,
or an appropriation bill passed by either or both chambers of Congress. However,
there have been instances when Congress has used a continuing resolution as an
omnibus measure to enact a number of appropriation bills.
A continuing resolution is a form of appropriation act and should not be confused
with the budget resolution.
 
Please clarify for FirmHandKY that I was correct and his assumption about the way Congress assigns monies is incorrect.  Money allocated last year, if not updated in a new budget, continues to be allocated at the same level the next fiscal year.
 
In other words, the Republicans can fund their war, and not fund all the lovely bills AnencephalyBoy signs into law, simply by doing what they are best at; absolutely nothing.
 
As regards the non-issue veto, I did not mean to imply that it would be impossible to override a veto, but the ones that the Republicans are tying their future to are unlikely to be overriden.
 
Next!
 
Sinergy
 
 



TreasureKY -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 6:31:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Thanks for the link, TreasureKY.  I had the acronym wrong.  It is CR.  I took the libery of quoting from YOUR link.  (I am assuming that you did not bother to actually read the link you posted)


You are welcome.  Perhaps next time FirmhandKY asks you to provide sources for your information you'll be more amenable to returning the favor and provide useful ones.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Please clarify for FirmHandKY that I was correct and his assumption about the way Congress assigns monies is incorrect.  Money allocated last year, if not updated in a new budget, continues to be allocated at the same level the next fiscal year.


I believe it says that a temporary allocation may be based on the previous years rate OR the President's budget request OR an appropriation bill.  That's not quite what you claimed earlier when you said...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

... the way that budgetary laws are written if Congress does nothing (read: cannot get enough support to pass a new budget) the previous year's budget is used.


Which is what I believe FirmhandKY responded to with...

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I may be wrong, but I believe you are incorrect about the budget laws.  I don't believe that the previous years budget is used when or if no agreement is reached between the Administration and Congress.  Pretty sure this is not the case, but am willing to entertain the possibility that I am incorrect, if you can provide a reliable source.


So... I think it's highly presumptuous of you to believe you were correct and FirmhandKY was wrong.  It appears that you were indeed wrong... and FirmhandKY at least had the prudence to admit that he was not sure.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

As regards the non-issue veto, I did not mean to imply that it would be impossible to override a veto, but the ones that the Republicans are tying their future to are unlikely to be overriden.


Nice try backpedaling, but your exact words were...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

They do not have enough of a control over Congress to overthrow a presidential veto...


AND

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

The Democrats have a simple majority in both houses of Congress.  This is not enough to override a veto, or pass a budget that involves cancelling things like funding for the Idiocy in Iraq. 


Doesn't appear to have any other implications other than it can't be done... unless you are in the habit of saying one thing but expecting everyone else to read your mind about what it is that you are really trying to say.

Edited to correct formatting.




luckydog1 -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 6:33:28 PM)

I guess Sinergy doesn't grasp that a Continuing Resolution has to be passed, it is not automatic.  I do believe that somethings have been legislated to be automatic in funding (Social security payments and such)  But the Idea that Funding for the Millitary is garunteed with out a specific appropriation is directly at odds with the Constitution.  And he seems to think that the Republicans had the votes to override Clintons Vetos.  Why exactly was it that the Government was shut down under Clinton?  Why didn't the automatic budget funding kick in that time?  In the real world it would be becuase neither a budget nor a CR was passed on time, but in lefty world who knows the reason.



Sinergy -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 6:44:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

You are welcome.  Perhaps next time FirmhandKY asks you to provide sources for your information you'll be more amenable to returning the favor and provide useful ones.



Perhaps you are correct.  I am still waiting for him to explain the reasoning behind the computer modelling studies and how it relates to the loss of 36 cubic miles of ice mass.  So feel free to clarify the voluminous posts and information you were both kind enough to provide, as I was unable to connect up the relevance between what I posted and what you both posted.

Providing useful information goes both ways, TreasureKY. 

I will, however, keep what you suggest in mind and simply be the bigger person and provide the information I am asked to provide, state that I am not sure (e.g. stating I was unsure about the acronym CAR) or do as I have been doing which is review that which you are both kind enough to provide me with.

quote:



I believe it says that a temporary allocation may be based on the previous years rate OR the President's budget request OR an appropriation bill.  That's not quite what you claimed earlier when you said...



Please read it again.

To use either the budget from Congress or the presidential budget requests requires congressional approval.

Without congressional approval, the previous years amount is used.

When I say the previous years amount is used, I want to point out that this states a maximum amount which can be allocated.

Sinergy



luckydog1 -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 6:54:16 PM)

Continuing Resolution: Appropriations legislation enacted by Congress to provide
temporary budget authority for Federal agencies to keep them in operation when
their regular appropriation bill has not been enacted by the start of the fiscal year.
A continuing resolution is a joint resolution, which has the same legal status as a
bill.
 
Continuing resolutions have to be passed, they are not automatic.
 
 



FirmhandKY -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 6:57:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

You are welcome.  Perhaps next time FirmhandKY asks you to provide sources for your information you'll be more amenable to returning the favor and provide useful ones.



Perhaps you are correct.  I am still waiting for him to explain the reasoning behind the computer modelling studies and how it relates to the loss of 36 cubic miles of ice mass.  So feel free to clarify the voluminous posts and information you were both kind enough to provide, as I was unable to connect up the relevance between what I posted and what you both posted.

Providing useful information goes both ways, TreasureKY. 

I will, however, keep what you suggest in mind and simply be the bigger person and provide the information I am asked to provide, state that I am not sure (e.g. stating I was unsure about the acronym CAR) or do as I have been doing which is review that which you are both kind enough to provide me with.

quote:



I believe it says that a temporary allocation may be based on the previous years rate OR the President's budget request OR an appropriation bill.  That's not quite what you claimed earlier when you said...



Please read it again.

To use either the budget from Congress or the presidential budget requests requires congressional approval.

Without congressional approval, the previous years amount is used.

When I say the previous years amount is used, I want to point out that this states a maximum amount which can be allocated.

Sinergy



Sinergy,

Let's suffice it to say that we will continue to disagree about the Congressional funding process.

However, a continuing resolution must be separately enacted in each case that a budget has not been passed.  Such a continuing resolution must be approved and passed by both houses, and signed by the president.

My point was that the Democrats have had the ability to stop the funding for current Presidential policies at any time, as long as they have the political will.

As the Majority party in both the House and the Senate, they control the Chairs of the Committees, and simply can refuse to report out of committee any budgetary or continuing resolution that contains funding for militiary operations in Iraq.

Simple thing to do.  The Republicans did something very similiar to Bill Clinton in the mid-90s'.

Again .... you seem to wish to give the Dems a pass on their inability to take effective action to end the war.  My point is that this is incorrect.  The Dems have the ability, they simply do not have the desire.

Firm



luckydog1 -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 7:01:27 PM)

Firm, that flimsy excuse will probably work for some of the weaker minded leftists.  He has to come up with some reason, pretending that CRs are automatic is as good a fake reason as any, I suppose.



TreasureKY -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 7:08:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Perhaps you are correct.  I am still waiting for him to explain the reasoning behind the computer modelling studies and how it relates to the loss of 36 cubic miles of ice mass.


lol... You know, people are going to start to wonder about this obsession you have.  Are you next going to start referencing in every post about how I've somehow insulted your relationship with julia?  [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Please read it again.


I've read through it several times and I'll be darned if I can figure out just how you got this...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

To use either the budget from Congress or the presidential budget requests requires congressional approval.

Without congressional approval, the previous years amount is used.

When I say the previous years amount is used, I want to point out that this states a maximum amount which can be allocated.


From this...

Continuing Resolution:

Appropriations legislation enacted by Congress to provide temporary budget authority for Federal agencies to keep them in operation when their regular appropriation bill has not been enacted by the start of the fiscal year. A continuing resolution is a joint resolution, which has the same legal status as a bill.

A continuing resolution frequently specifies a maximum rate at which obligations may be incurred, based on the rate of the prior year, the President’s budget request, or an appropriation bill passed by either or both chambers of Congress...

Perhaps it's just me and I could be wrong.

Then again, I doubt it.  [;)]




Sinergy -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 7:49:12 PM)

 
Thank you for the attack, TreasureKY.  I was simply responding to your comment chiding me for not providing source materials by bringing up an example where you and FirmHandKY failed to do so yourself.

The concept you may or may not be familiar with is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Demonstrate the behaviors you wish others to demonstrate as well, or stop attacking other people
for doing/not doing things you are unwilling or incapable of doing yourself.  People who do such things
often end up looking small minded, ignorant, and argumentative.

Now, as far as the arguing over the source you provided, I will provide one of my own.

http://www.nist.gov/admin/mo/adman/803.htm

8.30.04.h. Continuing Resolution - A joint resolution enacted by Congress usually at the beginning of the fiscal year to provide authority and necessary funding for federal agencies and programs to continue in operation until the regular appropriations acts are enacted.

I was incorrect.  This law has to be approved by Congress.  It basically says "Gee, we cant agree, so why dont we just pass one of these so we can all go on vacation for another year."

This would be the actual LAW in place providing for funding in the case that Congress is incapable of passing a new budget in the new fiscal year.

Feel free to argue with that one.

Sinergy



FirmhandKY -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 8:15:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Thank you for the attack, TreasureKY.  I was simply responding to your comment chiding me for not providing source materials by bringing up an example where you and FirmHandKY failed to do so yourself.

The concept you may or may not be familiar with is good for the goose is good for the gander.


In other words, you are still pissed at me for not taking your bait, so you decide to take it out on Treasure instead?

I have several ways that I could express my opinion of such behavior.

But ... I really don't have to, because you have summed it up pretty well ....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Demonstrate the behaviors you wish others to demonstrate as well, or stop attacking other people for doing/not doing things you are unwilling or incapable of doing yourself. People who do such things often end up looking small minded, ignorant, and argumentative.


All this stuff now about CR...  is simply a smoke screen.

As I have stated several times, the issue I challenged you on was your claim that Democrats were incapable of having an effect on Administration policies in Iraq.    You yourself now admit that a CR is a law that must be passed by both houses - which are in the control of the Democrats

Firm



Owner59 -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 8:29:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Thank you for the attack, TreasureKY.  I was simply responding to your comment chiding me for not providing source materials by bringing up an example where you and FirmHandKY failed to do so yourself.

The concept you may or may not be familiar with is good for the goose is good for the gander.


In other words, you are still pissed at me for not taking your bait, so you decide to take it out on Treasure instead?

I have several ways that I could express my opinion of such behavior.

But ... I really don't have to, because you have summed it up pretty well ....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Demonstrate the behaviors you wish others to demonstrate as well, or stop attacking other people for doing/not doing things you are unwilling or incapable of doing yourself. People who do such things often end up looking small minded, ignorant, and argumentative.


All this stuff now about CR...  is simply a smoke screen.

As I have stated several times, the issue I challenged you on was your claim that Democrats were incapable of having an effect on Administration policies in Iraq.    You yourself now admit that a CR is a law that must be passed by both houses - which are in the control of the Democrats

Firm



firmhanky,
You know the troops are being held hostage,by bush.

He controls the board,the pawns,and the death cards.

Putting any of this on the dems, is bearing faults witness.

Iraq death toll:3843

Wounded in action:30205

How many more are going to die,in the year left, of bush`s term?And for what?



juliaoceania -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 9:34:52 PM)

quote:

lol... You know, people are going to start to wonder about this obsession you have.  Are you next going to start referencing in every post about how I've somehow insulted your relationship with julia?  [;)]


This is very confusing...huh?


Please refrain from bringing me into your debates, if you had not noticed, I do not address either one of you anymore.



popeye1250 -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 10:10:37 PM)

Yeah, Julia's an "Academic" now.



juliaoceania -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 10:11:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Yeah, Julia's an "Academic" now.


And what does this have to do with the thread?



Sinergy -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 10:31:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

In other words, you are still pissed at me for not taking your bait, so you decide to take it out on Treasure instead?



Im not pissed at you.  I am seldom even interested in you or treasureKY, except that occaisionally you
post something which makes me think and/or research and learn something.  What I am doing is making fun
of your and treasureKY's behavior and your treatment of other people on the message boards. 

There is a difference.

She attempted to insult me about not providing source materials or explaining what my point was in relation to the sources I provided, and I was simply pointing out that you and she have displayed exactly the behavior you are accusing me of on the boards.

The fundamental difference is that I researched my point, read her sources, found different sources, acknowledged the points she had made, and then provided a cogent analysis of the relevant laws.  On the case I keep citing, you failed to intelligently clarify what computer modeling (which I used to do for a living) difficulties had to do with loss (said studies I provided numerous citations of concerning the findings of gravitational measurement satellites) of ice mass.  In fact, you stopped responding on that thread at all.  Perhaps you lost interest in global warming and the theoretical modelling difficulties you claimed to be so familiar with, or perhaps you left the thread when you were called out on a feeble attempt to appear intelligent and educated on an issue (global warming and computer modelling) you are completely ignorant of.

Either way, I dont really care, except it is mildy amusing to keep reminding you both of it when you attack myself or other people for not making cogent and researched points on other threads.  If the two of you refuse to so yourself, seems to me rather silly that you both believe you can attack other people for not doing it.

There is a difference between being angry and being mildly amused.  Let me know if you need me to cite sources for that. 

In regards your points about "They have to pass something."  Failing to approve the CR means that Congress has to stay in session that much longer to argue, whereas if they all approve the CR they can all go home.  In this sense the Democrats are as much to blame as the Republicans, since they know they will be unable to break the lock-step idiocy of the Republicans and are unwilling to try to force the issue by making everybody stay and do their jobs.

I have made the point numerous times that I dont really like either side of the aisle.  I just find it amusing how no matter what happens in our government, certain news agencies, party apparatchiks, and talking head pundits do nothing but try to figure out a way to blame the Democratic party for everything that happens.

Sinergy



luckydog1 -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 10:46:48 PM)

Where did Treasure KY attempt to insult you?  She pointed out that you were 100% wrong, and talking without a clue.  Even after you were corrected you tried to argue the point.  Thats not an insult.


"The fundamental difference is that I researched my point, read her sources, found different sources, acknowledged the points she had made, and then provided a cogent analysis of the relevant laws."  Except you didn't, Sinergy, you were 100% wrong, and simply demonstrated how poor your Reseach and Anaylsis is.  I would have to say that since you were 100% wrong she did her research and provided Cognet analysis, while you gave partisan blather to try to excuse the behavior of the Dem Congress.  I have never heard the word "Cogent" used for something that is 100% incorrect.

My recollection of the Ice debate was that evidence was given that while the smaller ice sheet in Antartica is shrinking, the larger one is growing.  And the point was made by numerous people that none of the Climate models have been shown to be accurate yet.  What exactly is it you want him to give you a cite on in reference to it Sinergy?



Sinergy -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 11:04:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

My recollection of the Ice debate was that evidence was given that while the smaller ice sheet in Antartica is shrinking, the larger one is growing.  And the point was made by numerous people that none of the Climate models have been shown to be accurate yet.  What exactly is it you want him to give you a cite on in reference to it Sinergy?



Not exactly.

I posted a source (Scientific American) where a pair of gravity sensing satellites had determined that the continent of Antarctica had lost 36 cubic miles worth of ice mass in, if memory serves, the past 10 years.  This is ice mass which is out of the water, and ended up raising ocean levels.  This was in response to a dissertation about one ice sheet growing and the other shrinking, and my point was that while one appeared larger and the other smaller, gravitational sensing showed 36 cubic miles of water mass had dissappeared from Antarctica.  In other words, it didnt move as ice from point A to point B, it melted and ran off into the ocean.

FirmHandKY posted a long dissertation about difficulties in making a computer model showing the relevant causes for this loss of ice mass and how that related to shrinking / growing of ice shelves.

I asked what possible relevance a bunch of engineers and climate scientists and computer engineers having difficulty coding a computer model had to the hard science of satellites showing loss of ice mass.

He stopped responding on that thread.  In other words, he refused to back up his sources, clarify his position, or explain what his position had to do with the post he was responding to.

Fast forward to today, treasureKY argumentatively demands that I back up my sources, clarify my position, explain why my position is in regards to the issue I was responding to.

I did so. 

I then pointed out that I found it mildly amusing that they feel they can demand I back up my sources, clarify my position, explain what my position is in regards to the issue I was responding to, when the two of them have refused to do so at various times in the past.  Then I provided an example to back up my point.

Sinergy



Sinergy -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 11:06:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Sinergy, you were 100% wrong, and simply demonstrated how poor your Reseach and Anaylsis is. 



I agree, I was 100% wrong.

The acronym is CR and not CAR.

Sinergy




luckydog1 -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/9/2007 12:58:43 AM)

No you were 100% wrong, the Republicans did pass budgets, and did not run on CRs for 6 years.  And you were 100% wrong that CR's are automatic, and that if the Congress does nothing, funding stays at the same levels.  Getting the acronym incorrect is a meaningless error, that no one but you has pointed out.  And we understand why you want to pretend it is as you said.  But it ain't. 

If you feel like going back and finding the thread on ice I will take a look at it and comment



FirmhandKY -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/9/2007 5:17:44 AM)

lucky,

I wouldn't waste too much time or mental effort engaging Sinergy.

I think most anyone who reads his posts for very long, or reads a thread such as this one will draw the same conclusions as we have.  I think he realizes this, and it just burns him up, and causes him to attack harder.

I think the advice I often see elsewhere about "not feeding" certain types of posters is appropriate.

Firm



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875