They Got Spartacus

[Munchmasterman]

Don't take it so bad. One day you might win an argument. Tough to win an argument when you can't spell "argumentatively".
A fact was used against an opinion. Facts "trump" opinions in the real world. You acknowledging them isn't a requirement.

That's a typical occurrence. trumpys are long on opinions and short on facts.
The bars they have as standards are positioned very low.

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Is that all you've got? Argumentively beat up again.

[Munchmasterman]

There's nothing special about about trump being a racist. He is just an everyday racist. Of those types, very few are in the Klan.

You are an everyday liar.

Who said they have evidence he is in the Klan or that he runs it?

Link?

Originally Posted by oeb11

But, but , but whatabout ism No. 485764?????
All the Fascist DPST's have.


Is that the Fascist DPST evidence that Trump is a member and runs the KKK???
LOL

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by HoeHummer

Hey Fredsy, yous should get a different lawyer...your presents one is a lying sack of shit.

When did you become a lawyer ASSUP

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

trump pushed a huge unfunded tax break though and steals money from the defense budget to name 2 things.
Thank you for admitting Obama didn't run the debt up. Just kidding. Repubs have controlled the senate since 2015 and the house since 2011 up until the last midterms.

Congress controls appropriations, not the actual spending. This is the short version of a somewhat complicated process. I know you guys hate reading anything longer than a tweet. A case in point is trump spending defense money on his wall.





IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A SPENDING BILL THE MONEY WAS ALREADY THERE.


Department of Defense is moving $1 billion out of a military personnel fund to be used to construct 57 miles of border “wall” — provoking strident (but impotent) objections from Democrats in Congress and setting up a big fight over next year’s Pentagon budget. On Monday night, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan issued a letter to the Department of Homeland Security informing them that he’d made $1 billion “available” for wall construction, by moving it into a military account for drug enforcement — one of the three pots of money the Trump administration is tapping under its declaration of national emergency. (The logic is that the wall will impede drug-smuggling corridors, though all available evidence suggests that the majority of drugs smuggled into the US through Mexico come via official ports of entry.)
Leaders of the congressional committees overseeing the Pentagon that same day got notification of $1 billion in “reprogramming” — shifting funds from one government agency or account to another — from the military-personnel fund to the drug-enforcement fund.
House Armed Services Committee Chair Adam Smith (D-WA) formally rejected that notice in a letter today: “The committee does not approve the use of Department of Defense funds to construct additional physical barriers,” he wrote.
But the letter was meaningless.
As Smith himself acknowledged while questioning Shanahan in an oversight hearing Tuesday, the request was unilateral — it wasn’t sent to Smith and Congress for approval, and it’s not something they have the ability to stop. The only thing that congressional Democrats can do now is to reduce the Pentagon’s ability to shift money around going forward — and that’s just what they’re threatening to do.
The Pentagon isn’t asking Congress to move money for the wall. It’s telling them.

In December, Trump allowed the federal government to partially shut down as a way to pressure Congress to give him $5.7 billion in funding for physical barriers on the US-Mexico border. Congress won that standoff, ultimately giving him only $1.375 billion — but he instead declared a national emergency, using executive action to unlock billions more in wall funding from other government funds.








Yes, the uneducated once again use all CAPs to draw attention (that mommy and daddy never gave you) to themselves and to reconfirm their uneducated status.
Hang in there short guy. At least your posts aren't completely stupid and moronic. Little bb's gotchas usually aren't (I said usually instead of never because he might have actually had one).
No matter how smart you think you are, you aren't smart enough to check facts before you talk shit.


Tone it down until you get it right.

YOU GOT IT WRONG AGAIN AND ALWAYS.
WHEN YOU DIG YOURSELF INTO A HOLE...STOP DIGGING MUNCHY


View Larger
Image courtesy of the Library of Congress The House Appropriations Committee in 1918 featuring (from left to right) future Secretary of State James F. Byrnes of South Carolina, former Speaker Joseph Cannon of Illinois, Chairman J. Swagar Sherley of Kentucky, future Speaker Frederick Gillett of Massachusetts, future Secretary of War James W. Good of Iowa, and future Speaker Joseph Byrns of Tennessee.
Congress—and in particular, the House of Representatives—is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government.
^^^^^READING AND COMPREHENSION TO YOU IS NONEXISTENT DIPSHIT!!

Massachusetts’ Elbridge Gerry said at the Federal Constitutional Convention that the House “was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings.”


YOU DON'T LIKE ALL CAPS SO THAT IS WHY I DO IT.
YOU NOT ONLY TALK SHIT...YOU'RE FULL OF IT.

[Munchmasterman]

You can double your font size, and just like repeating a lie, doesn't make it any truer.

Your statement
"IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A SPENDING BILL THE MONEY WAS ALREADY THERE" shows who has the reading issue.
My statement, which you went out of your way to highlight was; "That's why trump's spending doesn't bother you"

You're the moron who brought the term "bill" into this and my previous statement, " steals money from the defense budget to name 2 things" shows I knew the money was already there

Did trump spend defense money on the wall, money that had been allocated for other Pentagon projects?

Yes or no? Yes he did.

Thank you for including,
"The Pentagon isn’t asking Congress to move money for the wall. It’s telling them" So congress had nothing to do with that money being spent, other than giving it (appropriated the money, didn't spend it) to the Pentagon to spend. trump's fake state of emergency was used as a justification for trump to spend extra money above the amount appropriated by Congress for the wall.
The CIC (trump for the morons) ordered the money to be made available for the wall.

When Congress appropriates the money to the various parts of the federal government, the money is a positive entry in the books. Only when the money is spent on goods or services is it negative

I am under no obligation to prove you're wrong other than supply proof. I'm not going to argue with a moron who thinks "power of the purse" and "purse-strings" are terms from the Constitution. You thought I said one thing and then you supplied an article that proved trump gave the orders to spend the money.

In general, funds for federal government programs must be authorized by an "authorizing committee" through enactment of legislation. Then, through subsequent acts by Congress, budget authority is appropriated by the Appropriations Committee of the House. In principle, committees with jurisdiction to authorize programs make policy decisions, while the Appropriations Committees decide on funding levels, limited to a program's authorized funding level, though the amount may be any amount less than the limit.

The budget resolutions specify funding levels for the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and their 12 subcommittees, establishing various budget totals, allocations, entitlements, and may include reconciliation instructions to designated House or Senate committees. The appropriations committees start with allocations in the budget resolution and draft appropriations bills, which may be considered in the House after May 15. Once appropriations committees pass their bills, they are considered by the House and Senate. When there is a final budget, the spending available to each appropriations committee for the coming fiscal year is usually provided in the joint explanatory statement included in the conference report. The appropriations committees then allocate that amount among their respective subcommittees, each to allocate the funds they control among the programs within their jurisdiction.[8].

Any fucking questions?

Then STFU.

PS I don't like it when you ram your head into a wall (hint, hint)

Originally Posted by bb1961

YOU GOT IT WRONG AGAIN AND ALWAYS.
WHEN YOU DIG YOURSELF INTO A HOLE...STOP DIGGING MUNCHY


View Larger
Image courtesy of the Library of Congress The House Appropriations Committee in 1918 Thanks for another post that confirms what I said. How fucking stupid are you?
I said,
"Congress controls appropriations, not the actual spending. This is the short version of a somewhat complicated process. I know you guys hate reading anything longer than a tweet. A case in point is trump spending defense money on his wall."

Go ahead and double your font size again, little guy.
Your daddy may be dead but he hasn't given a shit about you since he found out the "pool boy" was your real father. featuring (from left to right) future Secretary of State James F. Byrnes of South Carolina, former Speaker Joseph Cannon of Illinois, Chairman J. Swagar Sherley of Kentucky, future Speaker Frederick Gillett of Massachusetts, future Secretary of War James W. Good of Iowa, and future Speaker Joseph Byrns of Tennessee.
Congress—and in particular, the House of Representatives—is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government.
^^^^^READING AND COMPREHENSION TO YOU IS NONEXISTENT DIPSHIT!!

Massachusetts’ Elbridge Gerry said at the Federal Constitutional Convention that the House “was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings.”


YOU DON'T LIKE ALL CAPS SO THAT IS WHY I DO IT.
YOU NOT ONLY TALK SHIT...YOU'RE FULL OF IT.

Now go cry yourself to sleep. As usual.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

[COLOR="Blue"]You can double your font size, and just like repeating a lie, doesn't make it any truer.

You can color yours blue and it's still bullshit.

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Don't take it so bad. One day you might win an argument. Tough to win an argument when you can't spell "argumentatively".
A fact was used against an opinion. Facts "trump" opinions in the real world. You acknowledging them isn't a requirement.

That's a typical occurrence. trumpys are long on opinions and short on facts.
The bars they have as standards are positioned very low.

Winning an argument with you in person would be easy as I suspect you have a speech impediment - that's why you have such inelegant grammar and poor sentence structure.

In person I would also get the pleasure of beating your face to a pulp, you little worm.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by friendly fred

.... you little worm.

https://www.eccie.net/member.php?u=8...=eccie_reviews

Probably not available any longer to offer any positive feedback.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

There's nothing special about about trump being a racist.

There's nothing special about you!

And Trump could buy you with his pocket change!

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

https://www.eccie.net/member.php?u=8...=eccie_reviews

Probably not available any longer to offer any positive feedback.

Munchy likes it up the ass from guys anyway.

Those reviews with girls were just fakes to hide his cocksucking.