Re: lock step

Do you simply want proof of how the vote went?

Or:

Do you want proof of what came after the word "because" in Cliff's statement?

I'll accept the outcome of the vote, I want the legislation that was voted on. There's more to the No vote than no.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in news:BMPZn.18002$f_ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe17.iad:

Geez you are thick. In case you haven't noticed bills these days are thicker than the bible and contain all sorts of legislation, much of which has nothing to do with the name on the bill.

Are you misinformed or simply part of the problem?

Your comments are completely unrelated to the questions I directed at Strickland. Thanks for trying, though.

So, you weren't able to go to google and type in the words "republicans war funding afghanistan 2010".

That's interesting.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in news:G6u_n.7697$cO.5893 @newsfe09.iad:

Actually they very directly answered his questions. Cliff is casting aspersions on the Republicans for against a bill for which very little information was given. And as a matter of principle i would vote against any bill that had unrelated items in it, no matter what sweet sounding title the decievers plastered on it.

Strickland said he only wanted information about how the vote went. That does not involve opinions. It involves numbers. Some people voted yes, some people voted no. The information is easily available from reliable sources which are beyond reproach.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in news:9zv_n.11551$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe22.iad:

So did you read the first post which said:

[ Republicans voted lock step against funding the war they themselves had touted all along, because it did anything else but burn war money. ]

Strickland asked for a:

Citati Do you simply want proof of how the vote went?

Or:

Do you want proof of what came after the word "because" in Cliff's statement?

Point #1, no that can be looked up, it is most likely true that they voted against it.

Point #2. Cliff, ever the mind reading genius, assigned a reason to the Republican vote "because it did anything else but burn war money."

This supposition is as usual a figment of Cliff's imagination and what Strickland was looking for a citation to back up Cliff's hallucination.

Is that clear to you Joe? Maybe if you weren't such a dumbass your wife wouldn't make you sleep in the Spare bedroom.

Now do you need ass scratching or dumping piss out of a boot lessons, too?

I don't care what reason Cliff assigned to the vote. If you disagree, then you're reading something into my words because you are desperate.

My goal was achieved when Strickland said he was only interested in the numbers. That was my only interest in this discussion.

I can google anything, but the person that made the assertion should back it up. I asked for a citation. Don't be an ass.

YOUR comment is completely unrelated, the comment that you're thick spot-on, especially siince I already told you that I wanted a cite of the bill that everybody voted No on. There's more to the No vote ...

I NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE SORT, you lying sack of shit.

Why would he lie about something so easy to check on a reliable .gov web site which appears near the top of a properly worded google search?

I never said there was NOT more to the No vote. I simply asked you which half of Cliff's statement you needed more information about. You answered the question. I accomplished my goal, which was to prove that you were too lazy or stupid to create a google search which a high school kid could put together.

Go back and read your first response to me, sonny boy.

My first response was, "citation." Your reply was if I wanted the vote or the legislation. I said I wanted the legislation. I NEVER said anything about how the vote went. Indeed, I stated more than once that a No vote means more than, no.

Your reading comprehension has fallen to a new low. How does one get to be so old and so stupid at the same time?

"I'll accept the outcome of the vote"

- Jeff Strickland

You *also* said you wanted more. But you DID say that the outcome of the vote (meaning the numerical count) was ONE of the things you wanted. If you disagree, then you need to learn how to write.

Let me at the crack pipe, then you can explain it again. I can't keep up with your lunacy when my head is clearer than yours. I gotta say, it's pretty early for you to be hitting the drugs already.

Just because you say it doesn't make it correct.

Indeed, far more often than not anything you say is nonsensical and irrelevent, not to mention factually inaccurate. Remember, you're the guy that has no clue what he said or what he's talking about.

I'm sure you can recall what you said about Oakland's handling of our men and women in uniform that were denied access to the terminal while their plane was on a lay-over. You were completely and utterly wrong on the facts FOR MONTHS. Months. You've done nothing since then to rebuild your credibility on any subject, and you seem to spend an inordinate amount of effort destroying any credibility you have remaining. It's difficult to go from zero to less than zero, but you find a way to do it almost every day.