Infidel Dog

As I was looking for that last link I found this that kind of explains at least some of why Canada under Trudeau has to print more money. Might also apply to America and others: https://torontosun.com/opinion/goldstein-trudeaus-runaway-spending-hiked-canadas-debt-160-billion-before-pandemic-hit-report

Speaking of working multiple jobs I heard an interesting one on YouTube. If it's not true feel free to show me why it's not. You know how the Biden mouth pieces have been saying there is no recession because job growth is so high? Well, the claim I'm hearing now from the other side is almost all of those new jobs are part-time and many are people working multiple jobs. There's also this: 62.1%: Labor Force Participation Falls in July, As 239,000 More Americans Drop Out of Labor Force

Seriously? You don't know the answer to that? Jeesh...what are the corporate and state-run media telling you over there in Progworld? I can give you the money points. Under Biden they've been printing trillions to pay for their waste. More money on the market makes what's there worth less. To be fair it's not just Biden. Canada in particular and others are also offenders: https://spencerfernando.com/2020/10/07/the-bank-of-canada-is-printing-money-like-crazy/ That's the most important one. The other one I told you about years ago. Raise the price of fuel and everything from food to lodging goes up.

Why did Griner think it was a good idea to smuggle drugs into Russia anyway? Too bad they weren't playing in Turkey was my first take. That kind of stupidity deserves a ride on the "Midnight Express."

No need to shout at yourself, your majesty. As you know, I'm a patient guy. I can explain it to you again. The Republicans never stopped the bill. It was held up, delayed while they discussed a budgetary gimmick that could have been used to misdirect funds to Democrat pet projects having nothing to do with helping veteran's. Nobody was against the bill to help veterans. The bill had passed the Senate once before in June. It went back to the house because a tax provision can't originate in the Senate. The House sent a tweaked bill back to the senate with a budgetary gimmick attached. 27 senators that had voted for the original bill held the new version up to discuss amendments. The Dems refused to amend. They voted again and the bill passed. I don't see where you're seeing flip flopping there. Both sides were always for the bill. There was discussion over whether the new provision could be exploited to add pork. The Dems promised that wasn't what was happening and the Republicans went back to their original pro-vote. Did you see where Jon Stewart went hysterical when a couple of guys tried to explain things to him. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/jon-stewart-melts-down-jack-posobiec-outside-capital Eventually though even he calmed down and listened to reason. If he really is your hero you should learn from him. Everybody was for the bill from the beginning. Stewart wanted to stir up controversy out of a misunderstanding on how the normal process of discussion in the Senate works.

Oh, and Beave, in case you still don't get why it was Dems that did the dirty regarding the Pact Act and why Jon Stewart is a clueless poser, Ben Shapiro has arrived to explain it all with such crystal clarity even you might understand it.

If that confuses you, Beave try these: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-democrats-block-gop-policing-bill-n1232000 https://go2tutors.com/democrats-block-school-safety-bill/ https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2021/07/21/house-democrats-block-covid-origins-bill-n2592839 And I know you didn't think bills on Oil mattered but I guess that's what life on a bicycle will do to you. You also might want to look at these two: https://dailycaller.com/2022/03/10/democrats-energy-keystone-xl-oil-leasing/ https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2022/07/21/house-dems-block-bill-to-ban-strategic-oil-sales-to-china-n2610580

Boy did you ever fuck up there Beave. Bad time to make a typo. What county is Chicago in, anyway? Just kidding. Carry on.

Actually what I and multiple others are calling it is a "budgetary gimmick" so I'm not sure who you're supposed to be quoting. And are you talking about this? You should have gone to the link and kept reading. They go on... "Officials from Sen. Toomey’s office also cited a provision they said was added to the PACT Act right before the debate of the bill on the Senate floor, which stated that any discretionary budget funds related to burn pits could become classified as mandatory spending." I get the feeling you still don't understand what it's all about though. Here, try this one: Who exactly is sabotaging the PACT Act? He explains the nit to the gritty from both sides. In fact at one point you'll think he's on your side and post that to me like that's all there is in there but grit your teeth and keep reading because I promise you I'll post you the rest if you don't.

But this might be the best one because there are first source links embedded within so you can check the claims: https://thepostmillennial.com/receipts-jack-posobiec-burns-jon-stewart-after-uninformed-meltdown-over-senate-veterans-bill " When the Senate GOP declined to pass the PACT Act this week, comedian and pundit Jon Stewart blasted from for what he termed voting against veterans. But as Human Events Daily's Jack Posobiec pointed out, the senators weren't voting against veterans, they were voting against a random $400 billion that had been snuck into the bill. Posobiec took a look at the bill, which was passed in June, but then required to be put up for a revote after the House made a change to the legislation. The change in the bill up for a vote before the Senate, according to the Congressional Budget Office, was to the tune of $400 billion in completely unrelated spending. https://thepostmillennial.com/receipts-jack-posobiec-burns-jon-stewart-after-uninformed-meltdown-over-senate-veterans-bill House - https://cbo.gov/system/files/2022-02/HR3967_RCP.pdf… Senate - cbo.gov/system/files/2

Here it is again in case you missed it: " The PACT Act as written includes a budget gimmick that would allow $400 billion of current law spending to be moved from the discretionary to the mandatory spending category. This provision is completely unnecessary to achieve the PACT Act’s stated goal of expanding health care and other benefits for veterans. However, it would enable an additional $400 billion in future discretionary spending completely unrelated to veterans. By failing to remove this gimmick, Congress would effectively be using an important veterans care bill to hide a massive, unrelated spending binge." And again because you seem to believe there was only one source for the information: " Deep in the NBC story, the reporters acknowledged that “Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Penn., who voted against the legislation in June, has remained vocally critical of the bill. Yesterday, after the vote, he said that the bill included a “budget gimmick” that moved $400 billion over 10 years from “discretionary to the mandatory spending category,” which he considered unreasonable.”1 I then investigated what the House must have debated about the bill and found Claudia Tenney’s (R-NY) Congressional Representative Website: “I voted “No” on the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act. I strongly support efforts to deliver much-needed relief to veterans suffering from exposure to dangerous toxins… Unfortunately, this legislation, as considered by the House of Representatives, used an accounting trick to shift the spending from discretionary to mandatory, which could open the door to even further reckless spending by President Biden, Speaker Pelosi, and Leader Schumer despite inflation recently hitting a 41-year-high of 9.1 However, I will continue to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to improve upon this concern and ensure that we keep our commitment to veterans and deliver the care, resources, and support they need and deserve.”2 The 28 JUL 2022 US Senate vote on the PACT Act happened just hours after Senator Manchin changed his mind and supported the $739 Billion Inflation Reduction Act, which is the watered down version of Biden’s elusive Build Back Better Act. With the $400 Billion accounting trick built into the PACT Act, the Democrats have over $1 Trillion in new spending planned as the country officially enters a recession (2 negative growth quarters in a row) and has 9.1% inflation largely due to excessive government spending on Biden’s watch. Even Amazon mogul Jeff Bezos, who is an ardent supporter of the democrat party commented in May 2022, “They know inflation hurts the neediest most. Remember the administration tried their best to add another $3.5 Trillion to federal spending. They failed but if but if they had succeeded, inflation would be even higher than it is today and inflation is at a 40 year high.”3 " And what is actually claimed on Senator Toomey's website is his: "technical fix does not reduce spending on veterans by even $1 or affect the expansion of care and benefits in the underlying bill."

Nah...It just seems that way to you because it almost always is you on the receiving end. And I don't think of it as an accusation so much as an observation. But you and Jon Boy couldn't find where Cruz and the republicans got the idea there was a budgetary gimmick that allowed the dems to turn Vet money into democrat pork. So I found it for you and it turns out you could actually find it if you looked. But now it also turns out you found some Dems who when confronted with it give us the equivalent of "Pork? What Pork?" Well, surprise, surprise... But at least we now know the rest of the story.

And according to Pat Toomey the bill isn't killed. It's held up. He wants it back in discretionary spending then it can pass.

I don't get why Jon Stewart is such a hero to Progressives. He's a smug, poser who's almost always wrong. Take this one for example. If he really wanted to see how the budgetary gimmick worked he could spend 10 minutes on a non-Google search app like I did. Then he'd know it's been explained all over the place. Here's Fox News, for example: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen-pat-toomey-holds-final-approval-burn-pit-veterans-aid-package-citing-spending-concerns There already was 400 billion dollars allotted for discretionary spending. When the Pact Act passed with bipartisan support in the House the assumption was that was where the money was coming from. But just before the act went up for a vote in the Senate Dems slipped something in saying it would be billed as mandatory spending. This made the 400 billion in discretionary spending Democrat Pork.

Sorry King of Wrong, you're wrong again. That decision didn't write a law. Americans didn't all of a sudden get access to firearms for self-protection because Scalia thought it would be a good idea. They always had the right to such access and still do, with provisions. The court didn't write the law. It interpreted the law as written in the constitution. It kept things as they'd pretty much always been.

South Africa doesn't get the attention from the western media it should, but it should be high up there on all those lists we see on the right of places where Socialism doesn't work. Create a problem then offer up your even more radical left self as a solution. Classic Progressive Socialism.

" A South African opposition figure has warned of impending civil unrest in the continent's richest country and likened it to 'an Arab Spring.' The controversial opposition leader Julius Malema spoke of the country waking up one day with 'very angry people that are not going to be reasonable.' Discontent with the ruling African National Congress (ANC) party in South Africa is at all-time high levels due to the social conditions within the country and 'the poor becoming poor,' according to Malema. 'When the unled revolution comes... the first target is going to be white people,' Mr Malema told the BBC's Hardtalk programme, adding that the uprising would also target 'black elites.' The only way to head off the violence was an immediate intervention to raise the quality of living for poor people in the country, according to Malema. 'The violence that is going to happen in South Africa is because the elite is disappearing and the poor are becoming more poorer,' he said." https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11062235/White-people-target-South-Africas-Julius-Malema-warns-impending-violence.html

And Aristides might want to take a look at the 14th amendment ratified in 1868 and how that affected the women's rights movement. A blanket assumption that says the constitution never supported rights for specific groups federally at any time is just silly. The constitution is set up so amendments can be passed where it is found to be weak. It is then the job of the Supreme court to settle arguments on how the constitution in its entirety needs to be interpreted. Not everybody believes that but that's their problem.

Up until the passing of the 13 amendment in 1865, you mean.

It's interesting though. Speaking of Prog world, I believe their last argument before the supreme court was the interpretation of 2nd amendment rights had to go to the states. As I recall they lost. It's interesting because that argument of it being under state control is the same one they're pooh poohing regarding abortion.

Don't be ridiculous, your majesty. Of course it's you that's wrong...again. Just by the odds best bet would be you blew another one. Like he said the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is right in the American constitution. Now it's true they connected that to a regulated militia but the best evidence of what they meant by it is the fact the people had the right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves for the rest of that century and the one that followed and the one that followed that and the one that followed that, and this one so far. It didn't start in 2008. The idea it did could only be one of those fantasies straight out of Beaveland via Prog World.

Even the American media is starting to notice the injustice in the treatment of Tamara. Hehe... Tucker called Little Potato a Castro.

I had to do that to register at the Vancouver Canucks official forum. Kind of irritating because you don't really know when or if you might get confirmed and suspect they might be sleeping on the button to make you an official member. But it seems to work even if some might get impatient and just give up.

"hate driven MAGA maggots" One has to laugh. Illogic is so written into the hard drive of the Prog mind that they wouldn't even see the obvious lie of hypocrisy in that quote from the warped mind of Prog. They just "hate haters' so much.

We're not the only ones to notice: 6 terms Biden has redefined to further agenda, stigmatize opponents "Recession" is the latest, and almost chuckle-worthy in its desperation definition change. But isn't it disgusting how the Dems' secretarial pool in the Mainstream Media just instantly jumps on board with any new misnomer term or fraudulently "fixed" definition. What's wrong with everybody who isn't you, him or me though, Sharkman that they so willingly get comfortable with that crap and buy into it?