Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

***Official*** 25th Amendment Thread


Sinn Fein

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

 

I tend not to get into these short out of context clips but, daaaannnnng, it sure looks like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2021 at 8:53 PM, Thunderlips said:

Why are we worrying about using the 25th against Biden?  Unless they're lying to me....a large contingency of Republicans and Trumpers have repeatedly told me Trump is going to be back behind Resolute any day now.

 

This isn't the case for Biden you think it is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, KingPrawn said:
21 hours ago, knowledge dropper said:

 

I tend not to get into these short out of context clips but, daaaannnnng, it sure looks like it.

Nope:

Quote

Social media users are sharing a clip of U.S. President Joe Biden during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and claiming it shows Biden falling asleep. The videos on social media, however, have been misleadingly cropped: seconds later, longer footage shows that Biden responds to Bennett.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, knowledge dropper said:

Ignore the swaying shoulders, closed eyes and slumped head as Joe sinks into dreamy land…30 seconds later he said something.  Fake News!

Nah, he wasn't sleeping its just terrible manners. His active listening skills are horrible and responses are incoherent, but he DID NOT fall asleep for 30 seconds. 

But to be safe let's just label this as misleading since we really dont know. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Can't BELIEVE there is an attempt to spin this.  Whatever he is doing, it ain't listening.  

Good gracious.

The spin started was that Biden was sleeping, using cropped videos to support that narrative. :lol:

Once that was proven to be false, the next spin is that he isn't listening. 

What's next? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rubiobot said:

The spin started was that Biden was sleeping, using cropped videos to support that narrative. :lol:

Once that was proven to be false, the next spin is that he isn't listening. 

What's next? 

Nothing in the longer video shows him to not be sleeping.  Not sure how you guys gather that.

But Ok...Say he isn't sleeping.  Then what the heck is he doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Do you ever tire of being wrong most of the time?  My comment had nothing to do with Trump.  His supporters and their selective faux outrage on the other hand......

Right........so how does that have nothing to do with Trump?  You're referring to his supporters and fans but say it has nothing to do with Trump.  That's logical

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

Right........so how does that have nothing to do with Trump?  You're referring to his supporters and fans but say it has nothing to do with Trump.  That's logical

Have we really gotten to the point where people have gotten so lazy they can't differentiate between individuals?  Really?  :lmao:

I know....anything to keep the narrative alive.  I'm seeing this in other threads as well.  You do you and I will be happy that a select group is finally caring about things like this even if it's momentary.  I'll take what I can get.  If it bothers you that it's pointed out, perhaps negating the fact by remaining consistent in standard would be of benefit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Commish said:

Have we really gotten to the point where people have gotten so lazy they can't differentiate between individuals?  Really?  :lmao:

I know....anything to keep the narrative alive.  I'm seeing this in other threads as well.  You do you and I will be happy that a select group is finally caring about things like this even if it's momentary.  I'll take what I can get.  If it bothers you that it's pointed out, perhaps negating the fact by remaining consistent in standard would be of benefit.

Hey you're the one that cant seem to get past Trump, not me.   So as far as the narrative, if you wanna just focus on the current problem, that might make that go away.  If you continually do BUT TRUMPPP then, well, that kinda continues the narrative now doesn't it?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Hey you're the one that cant seem to get past Trump, not me.   So as far as the narrative, if you wanna just focus on the current problem, that might make that go away.  If you continually do BUT TRUMPPP then, well, that kinda continues the narrative now doesn't it?

I didn't even bring him up but it's me that's obsessed  :lmao: 
 

The "problem" has been around a while and continues to be a problem as several of us have expressed both now and last cycle.  I was simply commenting on the those who basically remained silent last cycle and are now, apparently, gravely concerned.  I'm glad you guys are finally on board...welcome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Commish said:

I didn't even bring him up but it's me that's obsessed  :lmao: 
 

The "problem" has been around a while and continues to be a problem as several of us have expressed both now and last cycle.  I was simply commenting on the those who basically remained silent last cycle and are now, apparently, gravely concerned.  I'm glad you guys are finally on board...welcome!

You bring up his supporters, but not him. Yeah OK.   That logic doesn't work.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Some of us were trying to warn you all along. But sure, "all of a sudden"  :D

Warn me of what?  It's rather clear neither Trump or Biden are particularly "there" in a mental capacity.  I've made this argument several times myself.  The only thing that's changed is some people are selectively jumping on board.  As I said before, better late than never, even if it is just for a short time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

You bring up his supporters, but not him. Yeah OK.   That logic doesn't work.   

:lmao: Of course not.  Can't get into anything but the 100K foot level observations..."nuance" (and I find it really hard to classify something so blatantly and obviously different as nuanced but trying to meet you where you are) be damned!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, The Commish said:

:lmao: Of course not.  Can't get into anything but the 100K foot level observations..."nuance" (and I find it really hard to classify something so blatantly and obviously different as nuanced but trying to meet you where you are) be damned!!!!

I don't know if you really understand anything you are typing today.  But the smiley emojis are cool.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Commish said:

I like that this stuff matters now, all of a sudden.  Better late than never :thumbup: 

When you say "this stuff matters now", what time period are you comparing it to?  TIA

:lmao:   You should have just stayed down.

Edited by tonydead
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Rubiobot said:

Kind of like the deficit. 

 

The deficit should matter to both sides.  Neither side seems to care ENOUGH, though I will say, the Republicans have shown an interest in at least limiting spending more than Democrats.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, tonydead said:

When you say "this stuff matters now", what time period are you comparing it to?  TIA

:lmao:   You should have just stayed down.

Any point prior to this administration.  It's not unique to Trump guys, though they seem to be the most vocal.  As I said before, glad you guys are on board with concern :thumbup: 

The selectiveness is transparent, but I'll take you being on the right side even if for the wrong reasons.  Welcome aboard!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

 

The deficit should matter to both sides.  Neither side seems to care ENOUGH, though I will say, the Republicans have shown an interest in at least limiting spending more than Democrats.  

Because they SAiD so?  The actions only differ in who/what the spending goes to :shrug: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rubiobot said:

The spin started was that Biden was sleeping, using cropped videos to support that narrative. :lol:

Once that was proven to be false, the next spin is that he isn't listening. 

What's next? 

so your saying the original video is cropped & fake?  Where is the one showing him not nodding off?  I'm now curious & hope to god we have one that shows he is not sleeping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

The deficit should matter to both sides.  Neither side seems to care ENOUGH, though I will say, the Republicans have shown an interest in at least limiting spending more than Democrats.  

Odd.  When the poor complain of having expenses higher than their income, the right likes to say those people should get a better job, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, better themselves through education, etc., or in other words, find a way to increase their income (or, revenue).  Yet when government complains of having expenses higher than their income, the right suggests that government needs to decrease its spending rather than increase its income (or, revenue).  Curiously, even when government already spends more than it takes in, conservative dogma typically calls for decreasing revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Odd.  When the poor complain of having expenses higher than their income, the right likes to say those people should get a better job, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, better themselves through education, etc., or in other words, find a way to increase their income (or, revenue).  Yet when government complains of having expenses higher than their income, the right suggests that government needs to decrease its spending rather than increase its income (or, revenue).  Curiously, even when government already spends more than it takes in, conservative dogma typically calls for decreasing revenue.

 

I have no problem paying more taxes if it's accompanied by a decrease in spending.  I don't want higher taxes just so the government can spend more.  The problem is, when the right tries to decrease spending the left complains and when the left tries to increase revenue, the right complains.  If I'm given the choice, I rather pay less taxes.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

I have no problem paying more taxes if it's accompanied by a decrease in spending.  I don't want higher taxes just so the government can spend more.  The problem is, when the right tries to decrease spending the left complains and when the left tries to increase revenue, the right complains.  If I'm given the choice, I rather pay less taxes.  

I can't really remember a time when the right tried to legitimately reduce spending.  I do remember the right repeatedly reducing revenue.  Right now, I'd settle for just undoing all the recent revenue reductions imposed by the right.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Any point prior to this administration.  It's not unique to Trump guys, though they seem to be the most vocal.  As I said before, glad you guys are on board with concern :thumbup: 

The selectiveness is transparent, but I'll take you being on the right side even if for the wrong reasons.  Welcome aboard!

We all know what you meant and the semantics games you like to play for zero reason.

Nobody ever cared when the President fell asleep in a meeting in the entire history of presidents before Biden!  :lmao:

But Trump!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, tonydead said:

We all know what you meant and the semantics games you like to play for zero reason.

Nobody ever cared when the President fell asleep in a meeting in the entire history of presidents before Biden!  :lmao:

But Trump!

I'll never understand the obsession with creating straw men for people who agree with you on something just to try and make it seem like they don't agree with you.  What do you get out of that?  Just to argue?  It's an amazing thing to watch.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Snotbubbles said:

 

I have no problem paying more taxes if it's accompanied by a decrease in spending.  I don't want higher taxes just so the government can spend more.  The problem is, when the right tries to decrease spending the left complains and when the left tries to increase revenue, the right complains.  If I'm given the choice, I rather pay less taxes.  

I also do not mind paying higher taxes, but don't necessarily mind if the government spends more or less as long as they spend it on things I find important.  I would like to significantly narrow the gap between revenue and spending.  When was the last time the right has made a serious effort to decrease spending?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

I can't really remember a time when the right tried to legitimately reduce spending.  I do remember the right repeatedly reducing revenue.  Right now, I'd settle for just undoing all the recent revenue reductions imposed by the right.

 

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/trumps-2021-budget-would-cut-16-trillion-from-low-income-programs

https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/trump-budget-cuts-size-federal-government-bolder-reforms-needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

You may disagree, and that's fair, but I don't take a POTUS suggested budget seriously when POTUS party differs from Congress control.  POTUS budgets when not controlling Congress are basically just marketing (this goes for D budgets too).  Where were those same cuts in 2017-18 when Republicans did control Congress?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

You may disagree, and that's fair, but I don't take a POTUS suggested budget seriously when POTUS party differs from Congress control.  POTUS budgets when not controlling Congress are basically just marketing (this goes for D budgets too).  Where were those same cuts in 2017-18 when Republicans did control Congress?

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/268356/ratio-of-government-expenditure-to-gross-domestic-product-gdp-in-the-united-states/

As you can see, the Government expenditures as measured as a percentage of GDP were in line with the Obama administration, and somewhat below what Obama's administration spent.  It would have been nice to see the Republican's do more in reducing the expenditures when they had control.  But as I said before, it doesn't appear that either party is very concerned with reducing the budget.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

I can't really remember a time when the right tried to legitimately reduce spending.  I do remember the right repeatedly reducing revenue.  Right now, I'd settle for just undoing all the recent revenue reductions imposed by the right.

Yes because if anything has been proven to reduce spending, it's raising taxes. :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/268356/ratio-of-government-expenditure-to-gross-domestic-product-gdp-in-the-united-states/

As you can see, the Government expenditures as measured as a percentage of GDP were in line with the Obama administration, and somewhat below what Obama's administration spent.  It would have been nice to see the Republican's do more in reducing the expenditures when they had control.  But as I said before, it doesn't appear that either party is very concerned with reducing the budget.  

Right.  So GOP control resulted in no change in spending but vast reductions in revenue.  In other words, GOP control led to increases in the deficit.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Yes because if anything has been proven to reduce spending, it's raising taxes. :thumbup:

If you'd followed the thread, you'd see the goal of raising taxes wouldn't be to reduce spending but rather to reduce the deficit, something it most certainly would accomplish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

Odd.  When the poor complain of having expenses higher than their income, the right likes to say those people should get a better job, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, better themselves through education, etc., or in other words, find a way to increase their income (or, revenue).  Yet when government complains of having expenses higher than their income, the right suggests that government needs to decrease its spending rather than increase its income (or, revenue).  Curiously, even when government already spends more than it takes in, conservative dogma typically calls for decreasing revenue.

These simplistic comparison takes are so silly.   These are almost always a copy and paste item from facebook as some sort of meme where the person who created it probably gave himself a high five

So let me see if I have this right.  If a poor person was buying, oh I don't know,  COCAINE with their limited income, the right would be OK with that.  They only care about them making more money and never ever get upset about what they are wasting that income on.

Just so silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rich Conway said:

Right.  So GOP control resulted in no change in spending but vast reductions in revenue.  In other words, GOP control led to increases in the deficit.

 

I suppose you prefer the Obama alternative, higher taxes AND higher spending and deficits.  I feel like I continue to repeat myself.  I said it above, I'll say it again.  Since neither side seems particularly worried about spending and deficits, I prefer the side that taxes me the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rich Conway said:

If you'd followed the thread, you'd see the goal of raising taxes wouldn't be to reduce spending but rather to reduce the deficit, something it most certainly would accomplish.

 

It would only accomplish a reduction in the deficit if the spending didn't increase in an equal amount.  But for example, the Biden 2021 budget proposal increases tax revenue by 1.7T over 10 years but it also increases spending by 4T over the same time period.  So, yeah, tax and spend isn't really a deficit reducer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...