So how's that...

[FaithInOne]

tracking of every dime the transparent Governmente spends going?

recovery.gov eh

[ChumpDumper]

What is your specific bitch here?

[Barry O'Bama]

Leave me alone or I'm going to put the full pressure of the White House press on you.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously DarrinS's troll was so much better.

And it sucked.

[FaithInOne]

I'm sure he takes criticisms from the The profound omnipotent ChumpDumpster to heart.

[ChumpDumper]

You never told us what your specific bitch here is.

Do you actually have one?

[PEP]

You never told us what your specific bitch here is.

Do you actually have one?
Do you ever post anything of value besides questions of questions of questions?

[Winehole23]

Do you ever post anything of value besides questions of questions of questions?He torments morons and compulsive bullshitters. I consider it a public service.:tu

[ChumpDumper]

Do you ever post anything of value besides questions of questions of questions?What is it you are doing in this thread?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Do you ever post anything of value besides questions of questions of questions?

when someone lacks logical thought it's easy to expose it..

[hope4dopes]

He torments morons and compulsive bullshitters. I consider it a public service.:tu

Chimp also does this nifty little dance, but only whinehole can make him do it,and you gotta have a banana.

[ChumpDumper]

So nothing specific to complain about.

Ok.

[Barry O'Bama]

After going through the budget line item by line item as I promised numerous times during the campaign trail, I have decided to save the taxpayer by slashing a whopping .005 % of next years proposed budget.

[LnGrrrR]

I love how "Barry O Bama" just conveniently posts on every Lockbea... ahem, FaithinOne post.

[LnGrrrR]

After going through the budget line item by line item as I promised numerous times during the campaign trail, I have decided to save the taxpayer by slashing a whopping .005 % of next years proposed budget.

.05%, not .005. :)

[Winehole23]

I love how "Barry O Bama" just conveniently posts on every Lockbea... ahem, FaithinOne post.If his trolls don't tag team, he gets no support. (Except from micca and his tag teaming trolls.)

[Yonivore]

.05%, not .005. :)
Actually, it's .5%

But, that's irrelevant. Why is Obama reducing spending on a budget he proposed?

It is his budget.

Why did he include the $17 billion in the first place?

And as the Associated Press reported (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090507/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_budget;_ylt=AseWrpa10BztddB84XErUxsD5gcF) , “Those savings are far exceeded by a phone-book-sized volume detailing Obama’s generous increases for domestic programs that will accompany the call for cuts. And instead of devoting the savings to defray record deficits, the White House is funneling them back into other programs.”

His cuts are a snippet.

A distraction.

He is spending more than any president ever has — and borrowing 4 times more than any president in order to spend, spend, spend.

For people who damn near busted an aneurysm over a $300 Billion deficit, Obama's $1.2 Trillion deficit and his fake cuts have you singing his praises.

What gives?

[Yonivore]

Listening to Obama sell this, he's not really focusing on the dollar amount but the 'over one hundred programs cut' part. Clever marketing.

If nothing else this lame effort shows there's still power in the budget as an issue. It's telling that Obama feels he has to pay lip service to cutting spending even as he raises it through the roof.

Below, a reminder of when Obama thought $18 billion wasn't all that important.

7yszkIunA1I

Note he's comparing the 18 billion to 300 billion in McCain's tax plan. Now 17 billion is a big deal against 3 trillion. Hope and Change indeed.

[ChumpDumper]

Obama's Promise To Go Through Budget Line By Line Yields "Cuts" Of 17 Billion Dollars, Lots Of It From...Wait For It...Defense

I was promised there would be no math on this blog but $17 Billion on a $3.1 Trillion Budget is, add this, carry that and it totals....not a whole hell of a lot (actually, it's 1/2 of 1%).

Of course these aren't really cuts in the overall budget at all.

About half of the trims would come from curbing defense programs that have been identified by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates as expendable. They include ending production of the F-22 fighter plane and canceling a new presidential helicopter fleet.

...The proposed cuts, if adopted by Congress, would not actually reduce government spending. Obama's budget would increase overall spending; any savings from the program terminations and reductions would be shifted to the president's priorities.

But the more likely outcome, budget analysts said, is that few to none of the programs targeted by Obama will be terminated. Presidents from both parties have routinely rolled out long lists of spending cuts -- and lawmakers from both parties routinely ignore them."

In other words there's a good chance that the Kings of Pork on Capitol Hill will just stick 'em back in later. Well played Mr. President.

Listening to Obama sell this, he's not really focusing on the dollar amount but the 'over one hundred programs cut' part. Clever marketing.

If nothing else this lame effort shows there's still power in the budget as an issue. It's telling that Obama feels he has to pay lip service to cutting spending even as he raises it through the roof. The challenge for Republicans is that everyone loves to hear about budget cutting right up until it's there pet program that takes the hit.

Heh...What $17 billion will buy you.

Below, a reminder of when Obama thought $18 billion wasn't all that important.

7yszkIunA1I

Note he's comparing the 18 billion to 300 billion in McCain's tax plan. Now 17 billion is a big deal against 3 trillion. Hope and Change indeed.

http://minx.cc/?post=286957

[Yonivore]

Copycat

[ChumpDumper]

Plagiarist.

[Yonivore]

Plagiarist.
Ouch! :lmao

Of course, my stealing content for a bottom-tier forum is more important topic material than the discussion already being had.

Why don't you start a "Yonivore is a plagiarist" thread and see how many people join.

This is what you do when you have nothing to refute the content of my posts (stolen or not).

[Yonivore]

Oh, and tell me this Chump. When you post your "original" ideas, in here, is it the result of painstaking research of the core materials and documents of a topic or is it just repeating (in your own words, of course) that which people you trust have already stated?

Did you discover the idea that U. S. vs. Parker or U. S. vs. Lee had anything to do with the Interrogations case? If so, bravo -- even if I disagree with your conclusion, you've devoted a vast amount of time to making a point in an unimportant venue.

If not, you're stealing ideas. The only difference between us is you disguise your theft...I've never lied about co-opting the ideas of people, who make careers out of opining on these matters, and posting them in here.

[FromWayDowntown]

a vast amount of time to making a point in an unimportant venue.

Pot, kettle.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, and tell me this Chump. When you post your "original" ideas, in here, is it the result of painstaking research of the core materials and documents of a topic or is it just repeating (in your own words, of course) that which people you trust have already stated?

Did you discover the idea that U. S. vs. Parker or U. S. vs. Lee had anything to do with the Interrogations case? If so, bravo -- even if I disagree with your conclusion, you've devoted a vast amount of time to making a point in an unimportant venue.

If not, you're stealing ideas. The only difference between us is you disguise your theft...I've never lied about co-opting the ideas of people, who make careers out of opining on these matters, and posting them in here.:lmao

I found all those cases using google over the past few years. When I first found them I linked the story. I don't feel the need to do it continuously thereafter and, as you said, you don't read all my posts so there's no way you can tell when I first linked anything. All you can do is try to deny the cases existed, which of course led me to look up the actual case numbers, books written about them, etc.

I noted the Bybee's dearth of case law research because I already knew about the cases and knew that any 1L writing a brief for the first time ever would look for relevant case law. That piqued my interest so I dug a little deeper into each case. Something Yoo and Bybee never did. Turns out pretty much everyone in the legal community agrees with what I though -- not that it's anything but an obvious conclusion.

In the end, what can I say? I am intellectually curious and I ended up being right all by myself. You are not and you just wait for some blog to dictate your thinking.

And then you act like it was your idea and your writing. You painstakingly edit other peoples works to pretend you did it yourself.

That's the difference here.

You are a liar.

A bad liar.

[ChumpDumper]

Almost forgot...
Actually, it's .5%

But, that's irrelevant. Why is Obama reducing spending on a budget he proposed?

It is his budget.

Why did he include the $17 billion in the first place?

And as the Associated Press reported (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090507/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_budget;_ylt=AseWrpa10BztddB84XErUxsD5gcF) , “Those savings are far exceeded by a phone-book-sized volume detailing Obama’s generous increases for domestic programs that will accompany the call for cuts. And instead of devoting the savings to defray record deficits, the White House is funneling them back into other programs.”

His cuts are a snippet.

A distraction.

He is spending more than any president ever has — and borrowing 4 times more than any president in order to spend, spend, spend.

For people who damn near busted an aneurysm over a $300 Billion deficit, Obama's $1.2 Trillion deficit and his fake cuts have you singing his praises.

What gives?Why was Obama’s budget fat in the first place?

President Obama is cutting fat from a budget he proposed. Why did he propose it in the first place? This makes little sense.

Granted, there is great hullabaloo in cyberspace over his call to cut $17 billion from a $3,400 billion ($3.4 trillion) budget that was just approved.

It is his budget.

Why did he include the $17 billion in the first place?

And as the Associated Press reported, “Those savings are far exceeded by a phone-book-sized volume detailing Obama’s generous increases for domestic programs that will accompany the call for cuts. And instead of devoting the savings to defray record deficits, the White House is funneling them back into other programs.”

His cuts are a snippet.

A distraction.

He is spending more than any president ever has — and borrowing 4 times more than any president in order to spend, spend, spend.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/05/07/y/

[Yonivore]

Pot, kettle.
Takes seconds to cut and paste...I do spend a bit more time formatting and making it look like my idea.

[clambake]

I do spend a bit more time formatting and making it look like my idea.

just doing your part to pollute a bottom-tier forum?

[FromWayDowntown]

Takes seconds to cut and paste...I do spend a bit more time formatting and making it look like my idea.

All of that effort for a bottom-tier political forum?

I'm not, in any way, suggesting that you go elsewhere, but I have frequently wondered what it is that draws you (and Wild Cobra, too) to our bottom-tier forum, given that you don't seem to manifest any particular interest in discussing the San Antonio Spurs. Are you a Spurs fan who lurks when it comes to basketball discussion and has just found a home as the resident Bush apologist in a bottom-tier political forum? Or did the political talk somehow lead you here? I'm honestly curious about that.

By the way, plaigarism doesn't bother me; the bankruptcy of some of the ideas espoused in what you plaigarize and the indifference to trifling things like rules of law does, but the plaigarism itself strikes me as much ado about nothing. It is fun, however, to find the links to what you've posted and bust your chops for not bothering to link to your source material -- particularly when the source strikes me as something less than reputable. I mean, hell, I could start a political blog and post things to it that might appeal to you, but none of that would make my opinions anything more than what I offer here, in our lowly, bottom-tier political forum.

[jack sommerset]

You guys are a bunch of fags. Questioning why someone comes to this site. Good God. Yoni is a threat to some of you. Sad, but very true!

[clambake]

how is he a threat?

[FromWayDowntown]

You guys are a bunch of fags. Questioning why someone comes to this site. Good God. Yoni is a threat to some of you. Sad, but very true!

Not questioning. Curious. Yonivore can do whatever the hell he wants and he can write whatever the hell he wants. I hope he stays here and continues posting. He makes things more interesting here.

But I am curious what brings a political wonk like Yonivore to what he considers a bottom-tier political forum.

Yonivore poses no threat to me. My views are what they are; Yonivore isn't likely to change them. He can't find me personally and he can't do anything to my family. I see no threat.

[jack sommerset]

how is he a threat?

He is smarter than you.

[clambake]

He is smarter than you.

apparently he's smarter than you.

[jack sommerset]

apparently he's smarter than you.

I'm surprised you didn't take my quote and re-word it for me. That is so clever of you when you do that.:lol

[clambake]

you'd have to be a bottom-tier member of a bottom-tier forum to buy yoni's schtick.

buyers remorse, jack?

[jack sommerset]

you'd have to be a bottom-tier member of a bottom-tier forum to buy yoni's schtick.

buyers remorse, jack?

:lmao Obama remorse!!

[Yonivore]

I'll get to all this after dinner.

:lmao :toast

[Yonivore]

:lmao

I found all those cases using google over the past few years. When I first found them I linked the story. I don't feel the need to do it continuously thereafter and, as you said, you don't read all my posts so there's no way you can tell when I first linked anything. All you can do is try to deny the cases existed, which of course led me to look up the actual case numbers, books written about them, etc.
So, you didn't use the actual memorandums, go to the law library, study up on interrogations and write a brief that demonstrated how U.S. v Parker and U.S. v. Lee were relevant to prosecuting DOJ Lawyers for rendering an opinion on what constituted torture?

Wow! You just googled and linked to stories? So how, exactly is that different than my googling and ripping off content to which you merely link?

Like I said, your ideas are no more original than mine. They're based on second-, third-, fourth- or more-handed information gathered from sources you trust and can find on the internet.

The only difference is that I don't take the time to reformulate others words into my own and post it. If I agree with what is being said, I cut and paste it here.

Frankly, I would think the content is more important than the method for the content being posted. Call me lazy, call me disingenuous, call me a plagiarist; I don't care. But, don't pretend your attacks on me, in any way, respond to the content I've posted.


I noted the Bybee's dearth of case law research because I already knew about the cases and knew that any 1L writing a brief for the first time ever would look for relevant case law. That piqued my interest so I dug a little deeper into each case. Something Yoo and Bybee never did. Turns out pretty much everyone in the legal community agrees with what I though -- not that it's anything but an obvious conclusion.
I challenge your assertion. Not anywhere near "pretty much everyone in the legal community" has even stated an opinion on this matter publicly. Again, you -- like me -- are relying on internet sources you trust. I get that. But, that, in itself, doesn't translate to anything meaningful where a debate in an internet forum is concerned. You simply post information you believe supports your position and I do the same.

Considering a) there have been no criminal charges filed on anyone -- most particularly Yoo and Bybee -- and b) not even a significant fraction of the evidence necessary for you to draw the conclusions reached. The assertion Bybee and Yoo violated the law are premature and based on biases you have against everyone associated with the Bush administration.

Otherwise, you'd be insisting Congresswoman Pelosi and Congressman Rockefeller be similarly prosecuted because they were complicit in the enhanced interrogation techniques being employed.

You are a useful idiot in the left's attempts to mask low politics as high principle.


In the end, what can I say? I am intellectually curious and I ended up being right all by myself. You are not and you just wait for some blog to dictate your thinking.
Ah, the arrogance of idiocy. Explain, first, what crimes Bybee and Yoo committed. Then, tell me how U. S. v. Parker and U. S. vs. Lee are relevant.


And then you act like it was your idea and your writing. You painstakingly edit other peoples works to pretend you did it yourself.
Meh, you do the same but, you just run others ideas through that pea brain of yours.


That's the difference here.

You are a liar.

A bad liar.
I've never lied and, I readily admit that I steal content and post it to appear as if it's my own. I've explained in great detail why. But, it's not an attempt to get credit for the content...not that I care if you belive otherwise.

[Yonivore]

All of that effort for a bottom-tier political forum?
It's entertaining. In the past I've had more time to spend on here than I currently do.

I enjoy posting in this forum.


I'm not, in any way, suggesting that you go elsewhere, but I have frequently wondered what it is that draws you (and Wild Cobra, too) to our bottom-tier forum, given that you don't seem to manifest any particular interest in discussing the San Antonio Spurs. Are you a Spurs fan who lurks when it comes to basketball discussion and has just found a home as the resident Bush apologist in a bottom-tier political forum? Or did the political talk somehow lead you here? I'm honestly curious about that.
Fair questions.

I don't like basketball. I've often said they should give each team 102 points and two minutes on the clock. That's what every game I've ever watched seems to boil down to. So, no, it's not the basketball that drew me here.

A member of this forum -- who doesn't post here much anymore -- and I were also members of another forum. That member introduced me to SpursTalk after the other forum (SpursReport) deteriorated into complete nonsense under the drunken helm of Chris Duel. What a whack job.

Anyway, It's an outlet that I've enjoyed using over the years. I appreciate that Kori doesn't take sides even though I know she rarely agrees with me and I appreciate that all posters are pretty much treated equally by the board's monitors.


By the way, plaigarism doesn't bother me; the bankruptcy of some of the ideas espoused in what you plaigarize and the indifference to trifling things like rules of law does, but the plaigarism itself strikes me as much ado about nothing.
I'd be interested to know which ideas you consider to be "bankrupt," and to which rules of law you believe me to be "indifferent."


It is fun, however, to find the links to what you've posted and bust your chops for not bothering to link to your source material -- particularly when the source strikes me as something less than reputable. I mean, hell, I could start a political blog and post things to it that might appeal to you, but none of that would make my opinions anything more than what I offer here, in our lowly, bottom-tier political forum.
Again, I'd be interested to know which of the sources, to which I've linked or from which I've used material, that you find disreputable.

[ChumpDumper]

So, you didn't use the actual memorandums, go to the law library, study up on interrogations and write a brief that demonstrated how U.S. v Parker and U.S. v. Lee were relevant to prosecuting DOJ Lawyers for rendering an opinion on what constituted torture?Nope. Bybee and Yoo never studied up on Parker or Lee either -- or did and purposely left them out of their legal arguments -- which makes them really bad lawyers. The only reason you have the full citations is that you asked me for them since you decided to stall and deny the case actually existed. Tell me -- what did you do with the full citations once you had them? Last I checked, you were still asking me to hold your hand and tell you what Lee was about.


Wow! You just googled and linked to stories? So how, exactly is that different than my googling and ripping off content to which you merely link?I never pretended to write the articles myself.


Like I said, your ideas are no more original than mine. They're based on second-, third-, fourth- or more-handed information gathered from sources you trust and can find on the internet.I don't pretend I wrote them myself.


The only difference is that I don't take the time to reformulate others words into my own and post it. If I agree with what is being said, I cut and paste it here.Yes, the difference is you are so insecure, you need to pretend you wrote them yourself.


Frankly, I would think the content is more important than the method for the content being posted. Call me lazy, call me disingenuous, call me a plagiarist; I don't care. But, don't pretend your attacks on me, in any way, respond to the content I've posted.You are lazy, disingenuous, a liar and a thief. I respond to the content you steal as well.



I challenge your assertion. Not anywhere near "pretty much everyone in the legal community" has even stated an opinion on this matter publicly. Again, you -- like me -- are relying on internet sources you trust. I get that. But, that, in itself, doesn't translate to anything meaningful where a debate in an internet forum is concerned. You simply post information you believe supports your position and I do the same.Any lawyer that has commented on the research has said it sucked.


Considering a) there have been no criminal charges filed on anyone -- most particularly Yoo and Bybee -- and b) not even a significant fraction of the evidence necessary for you to draw the conclusions reached. The assertion Bybee and Yoo violated the law are premature and based on biases you have against everyone associated with the Bush administration.They sucked as lawyers. That's not necessarily a crime. That doesn't mean they didn't suck. Your sucking is not a crime, yet you do suck.


Otherwise, you'd be insisting Congresswoman Pelosi and Congressman Rockefeller be similarly prosecuted because they were complicit in the enhanced interrogation techniques being employed.If it is indeed criminal, sure. I'm not a blind partisan like you.


You are a useful idiot in the left's attempts to mask low politics as high principle.You are a useless idiot who doesn't underrstand what he steals.



Ah, the arrogance of idiocy. Explain, first, what crimes Bybee and Yoo committed. Then, tell me how U. S. v. Parker and U. S. vs. Lee are relevant.Ah, the idiocy of Yoni. tell me where I claimed a crime was committed.



Meh, you do the same but, you just run others ideas through that pea brain of yours.I'm not a common thief.



I've never lied and, I readily admit that I steal content and post it to appear as if it's my own. I've explained in great detail why. But, it's not an attempt to get credit for the content...not that I care if you belive otherwise.It is absolutely an attempt to get credit for yourself. You havesome need to appear as if you wrote everything yourself, so you lie about it every time you steal someone else's work.

You're a liar, and of course my attacks get to you. Otherwise you wouldn't be whining about it so much trying to justify your stealing and lying.