Democrats screw the Vets to protect....

Superfreak - You're being an ass.

1) It is not "corruption" to represent the interests of your constituents. That's what members of congress are paid to do.

2) The VA is not being denied anything. You are operating under the false assumption that if the land was sold or leased the VA would get the money. That assumption is 100% totally false.
 
"Yes, I realize the bill has not been signed. I also realize that you will all make up one excuse after another to try to make this appear as not a big deal. "

So, isn't it a little emotional, factually incorrect & incomprehensibly STUPID to question the effectiveness of legislation that HASN'T EVEN PASSED YET, as you have repeatedly on this thread?

Man, is that embarassing....
 
"I also realize that if this had been a Rep, you would all be going ape shit right now over how a Rep was protecting the rich at the expense of the Vets. Can YOU admit to that?"

No - I wouldn't be going "apeshit." You missed my post about painting me with your broad, idiotic "leftwing paintbrush."

You don't have a leg to stand on right now...
 
Onceler said:
"Yes, I realize the bill has not been signed. I also realize that you will all make up one excuse after another to try to make this appear as not a big deal. "

So, isn't it a little emotional, factually incorrect & incomprehensibly STUPID to question the effectiveness of legislation that HASN'T EVEN PASSED YET, as you have repeatedly on this thread?

Man, is that embarassing....
Click to expand...

What is embarassing is your non-stop attempts to minimilize this... because it is one of your own. If this were a Rep... your response would be vastly different. We wouldn't here the end of how the Rep was protecting the wealthy at the expense of the Vets. Would we hypocrit?

The whole point of the thread was to point out the hypocricy of the left. I applaud your non-stop effort to demonstrate that with such efficiency.
 
By the way Superfreak, do you know who was supposed to be the lessor of the land? A company by the name of Fox Entertainment Group, a subsidiary of NewsCorp. Who owns the majority voting shares of News Corp. and serves as its chairman? Rupert Murdock. Hmm, didn;t he just purchase a newspaper recently? Oh, that's right. He did. It was the Wall Street Journal. Where's this op-ed from?

Carry the water, waterboy.
 
Dungheap said:
Superfreak - You're being an ass.

1) It is not "corruption" to represent the interests of your constituents. That's what members of congress are paid to do.

2) The VA is not being denied anything. You are operating under the false assumption that if the land was sold or leased the VA would get the money. That assumption is 100% totally false.
Click to expand...

You are being a moron. It is absolutely corrupt to represent the interests of a few wealthy consitutents to the detriment of other poorer constituents. Especially when they are Vets. Or do you think the bridge to nowhere is ok, because it also looks out for a few constituents.

The VA is absolutely being denied the opportunity to use their land to raise money for the Vets. You are making an assumption based on nothing that the GSA would take away the funds that the VA raised from either leasing/developing their land. That land is under the managment of the VA, if the VA says they no longer need the land or if Congress determines that, THEN the GSA is responsible for the disposition of the land. Land under the management of the VA is just that.... under the management of the VA.
 
Superfreak said:
Are ya kidding? TWO HUNDRED acres in West LA? A few miles from the beach... yeah, what possible value could they get from developing that into a business park or something like that.
Click to expand...

This is an existing vets facility, correct? The article makes no mention of how many vets are being treated there, or can expect to be treated there in the future. Why would any politician cave on having a vets facility closed in their state or district? They wouldn't. I think you are overreacting to a very BShitty article.
 
"What is embarassing is your non-stop attempts to minimilize this... because it is one of your own. If this were a Rep... your response would be vastly different. We wouldn't here the end of how the Rep was protecting the wealthy at the expense of the Vets. Would we hypocrit?"

Go fuck yourself, Freak. You've got NO backup for this. The issues I get pissed about are largely Iraq & the environment, with some notable exceptions.

You are a pathetic loser; you generalize about me using NOTHING but impressions you have from other lefties, which have, in turn, given you a bent to always try to "nail" Democrats on hypocrisy.
 
Dungheap said:
By the way Superfreak, do you know who was supposed to be the lessor of the land? A company by the name of Fox Entertainment Group, a subsidiary of NewsCorp. Who owns the majority voting shares of News Corp. and serves as its chairman? Rupert Murdock. Hmm, didn;t he just purchase a newspaper recently? Oh, that's right. He did. It was the Wall Street Journal. Where's this op-ed from?

Carry the water, waterboy.
Click to expand...

Really?
 
"one of my own" - I don't even know what this means. I have started threads absolultey slamming Hillary, Reid, Pelosi, national Dems, et al.

Again, go fuck yourself...
 
Dungheap said:
By the way Superfreak, do you know who was supposed to be the lessor of the land? A company by the name of Fox Entertainment Group, a subsidiary of NewsCorp. Who owns the majority voting shares of News Corp. and serves as its chairman? Rupert Murdock. Hmm, didn;t he just purchase a newspaper recently? Oh, that's right. He did. It was the Wall Street Journal. Where's this op-ed from?

Carry the water, waterboy.
Click to expand...

1) Please provide evidence of the above.

2) If the VA gets funding from the leasing of the land, it does not matter who the leasee is. It is money that would go to the Vets. By using land that is currently not being used and thus serves no purpose other than protecting the views of rich hollywood elitists.
 
Superfreak said:
You are being a moron. It is absolutely corrupt to represent the interests of a few wealthy consitutents to the detriment of other poorer constituents. Especially when they are Vets. Or do you think the bridge to nowhere is ok, because it also looks out for a few constituents.

The VA is absolutely being denied the opportunity to use their land to raise money for the Vets. You are making an assumption based on nothing that the GSA would take away the funds that the VA raised from either leasing/developing their land. That land is under the managment of the VA, if the VA says they no longer need the land or if Congress determines that, THEN the GSA is responsible for the disposition of the land. Land under the management of the VA is just that.... under the management of the VA.
Click to expand...



Do we have to go through this charade? The bridge to nowhere benefited roughly 8,050 people. This park is in LA county for Christ's sake. L.A. has a population of about 4 million. Your suggestion that this benefits a few rich people is, like everything else, laughable. As is your suggestion, once again, the this would negatively impact veterans.

Please present some shred of evidence that the VA would keep any funds received through leasing the land. It simply isn't true.
 
Superfreak said:
1) Please provide evidence of the above.

2) If the VA gets funding from the leasing of the land, it does not matter who the leasee is. It is money that would go to the Vets. By using land that is currently not being used and thus serves no purpose other than protecting the views of rich hollywood elitists.
Click to expand...


From Congressional Quarterly:

Feinstein’s concerns came after the VA leased some of the land for commercial use to private companies, including the Fox Entertainment Group and Enterprise Rental Car, and her provision would not allow similar developments to take place at the site in the future.
Click to expand...

Also from Congressional Quarterly:

The OMB statement estimated that the provision “would eliminate more than $4 billion of revenue,” which it suggested “would be used to improve facilities around the country for our nation’s veterans.”
Click to expand...


OMB "suggested" the prospective revenue would be used to improve veterans' health facilities. OMG, the OMB IS PLANNING TO STEAL MONEY FROM THE POCKET OF THE VETS. HANG 'EM. HANG 'EM. THE VA CONTROLS THE LAND!!!1!1![/Superfreak]
 
Superfreak said:
What is embarassing is your non-stop attempts to minimilize this... because it is one of your own. If this were a Rep... your response would be vastly different. We wouldn't here the end of how the Rep was protecting the wealthy at the expense of the Vets. Would we hypocrit?

The whole point of the thread was to point out the hypocricy of the left. I applaud your non-stop effort to demonstrate that with such efficiency.
Click to expand...
Come on SF. He already told us, he needs one more Friedman Unit in order to have the "jury come back" on whether they are corrupt jerkoffs... Just one more Friedman Unit, then we'll know...
 
Dungheap said:
From Congressional Quarterly:



Also from Congressional Quarterly:




OMB "suggested" the prospective revenue would be used to improve veterans' health facilities. OMG, the OMB IS PLANNING TO STEAL MONEY FROM THE POCKET OF THE VETS. HANG 'EM. HANG 'EM. THE VA CONTROLS THE LAND!!!1!1![/Superfreak]
Click to expand...


Thank you for the Congressional Quarterly info. I do appreciate that. That does make one take what the journal reports on the matter with a grain of salt. However, it does not alter the fact that Feinstein is trying to prevent the VA from raising funds in this manner.
 
Damocles said:
Come on SF. He already told us, he needs one more Friedman Unit in order to have the "jury come back" on whether they are corrupt jerkoffs... Just one more Friedman Unit, then we'll know...
Click to expand...


Sorry about that, Damo. When a party actually makes a little effort to enact reform legislation, I like to wait & see just how effective that might be. I'm not even necessarily optimistic, but I do think it deserves a chance. I'm not that cynical y et.

And I never said it would prove they're not corrupt; I think I'm one of the few on this board who doesn't think there is anything inherent about Democrats or Republicans that makes them corrupt. It's more time in Washington than anything else.

I'll try my best to rush to judgment without evidence & on pure emotion in the future...
 
Onceler said:
Sorry about that, Damo. When a party actually makes a little effort to enact reform legislation, I like to wait & see just how effective that might be. I'm not even necessarily optimistic, but I do think it deserves a chance. I'm not that cynical y et.

And I never said it would prove they're not corrupt; I think I'm one of the few on this board who doesn't think there is anything inherent about Democrats or Republicans that makes them corrupt. It's more time in Washington than anything else.

I'll try my best to rush to judgment without evidence & on pure emotion in the future...
Click to expand...
Just pokin' at ya. It reminded me of the "Six more months" crowd on the war, that's all.
 
Superfreak said:
Thank you for the Congressional Quarterly info. I do appreciate that. That does make one take what the journal reports on the matter with a grain of salt. However, it does not alter the fact that Feinstein is trying to prevent the VA from raising funds in this manner.
Click to expand...

See, if you would just listen to me more, you would take anything in a Wall ST Journal opinion piece with a grain of salt. (the news section used to be great, but is now suspect because of the Murdoch take over)

Clear conflict of interest on Murdoch's part. No disclosure either. What a shitbag.
 
Damocles said:
Come on SF. He already told us, he needs one more Friedman Unit in order to have the "jury come back" on whether they are corrupt jerkoffs... Just one more Friedman Unit, then we'll know...
Click to expand...

I don't think one will do. They will need to see every single Dem do something worse than Bush before they admit that there is corruption within the Dems. In other words, they will never admit it, rather they will just continue to make excuses for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top