Federal Disaster Aid

First, budget offsets and pork aren't mutually exclusive.
Yes they are. Pork is still pork even if you make cuts for it.

Second, I was talking specifically with Inhofe in mind, who I assumed was the target of Brodinski's ridicule. As I already said.

[b] Your comments were more general and specifically directed at Republican opposition, and did not reference Inhofe.[b]


Third, I even said specific iterations of the bill, so when you talk about pork being stripped from an earlier version of it, you're actually confirming my point, even though you don't even seem to realize it.

No, because the comments you made are not directed toward one person. It is about Republican opposition to the bill, which was tied up in the House, not the Senate, and the issue given there there was budget concerns, not pork.

And fourth, you appear to be using a very strict definition of pork that arbitrarily excludes general budget increases without oversight. Please, explain to me why there would be any funding provisions that do not stipulate acceptable usage, if the bill is supposed to be targeted towards specific disaster relief. I'd love to hear why.

Actually, no. I'm not going to wait quietly.

Even if I weren't right about this (and I damn well am), it's pretty freakin' low to suggest that I knew better and said otherwise, which is basically just calling me a bald-faced liar. This is particularly galling, because I rarely see fit to question your basic honesty, despite a littany of errors so blatant and careless that they would give anyone ample reason to doubt your intentions. How'd you like to run through them, defending your integrity with each? Think that'll go well?

Yes they are. Pork is still pork even if you make cuts for it.

Your comments were more general and specifically directed at Republican opposition, and did not reference Inhofe.

No, because the comments you made are not directed toward one person. It is about Republican opposition to the bill, which was tied up in the House, not the Senate, and the issue given there there was budget concerns, not pork.

I can't make heads or tails specifically what that bill says, but there is nothing there that is about terrorism or doing things in other states, which apparently is in the Senate bill. Money for FBI expenses directly related to hurricane consequences and Amtrak damage or problems created by the hurricane don't strike me as unreasonable and if that was the main problem for GOP opposition probably could have been worked out. But you know full well if they worked out all that stuff, the bill would have still been opposed without budget offsets because that was what all the screaming was about, not FBI salaries.

I don't do talking points.

I am not that committed to the Dems.

Oh. My. God.


Remember when I asked you to find me a single example in a year of posting that was negative towards Democrats--even if only for their political prospects? Remember when you couldn't? But you're not that committed. I mean, it's not your fault that they always have the truth righteously on their side, right?

Because you are wrong. I have made critical comments of Democrats and you know it. I am supposed to go back and find the posts? I am much more critical of Democrats than your goose stepping to the Republican party, always attacking Dems for many of the same things Republicans have done while making excuses for them. Now again, i don't fo that. Nothing i have ever said comes close to your behavior. Your comments constantly sound like talk radio or Fox News talking points.

"I see partisans hacks. All the time. They're like normal people. They only see what they want to see. They don't realize they're partisan hacks."

Shorter version of your entire post: "Nah-uh, you are."

I can think of lots of things I've given flack to Republicans for. I thought Romneycare was crap, as were Romney's attempts to distinguish it from Obamacare, and I said so early and often. I think they're mostly wrong on immigration, too, which I've never been shy about mentioning.

What about you? You say "go back and find them," but I asked you last year, too, and you didn't have anything to show me then, either. Everything you posted was bad for Republicans. If there's anything like a scandal or bad news for Democrats, it's either a) played down and brushed off or b) never brought up.

Sure, you're not super-liberal. Never said you were. But you're a worse kind of partisan: the kind who thinks he isn't one.

If something the Republican candidate for President is routinely saying doesn't count as a "Republican talking point," then you're using the term in pretty weird way. The point is about the degree to which people criticize their own party, and this is a perfect example of that.

Speaking of which, you're just gonna keep dodging that, right? You couldn't produce any examples last year, and you can't produce any now, but you're just going to keep saying they exist. Forget producing one for a second: can you even remember an example, even if you don't know where the post is? Can you think of even one?

Okay, show me. If they're "numerous," it shouldn't be hard to produce a few of them.