Front Office Football Central  

Go Back   Front Office Football Central > Archives > FOFC Archive
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Statistics

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-02-2007, 11:27 AM   #201
Vinatieri for Prez
College Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMyths View Post
When one talks in buzzwords, one shouldn't be surprised that the stereotypical generic category one uses may be taken to mean a slightly larger stereotypical generic category. That's not hard to understand.

If instead of talking about "the liberals" one makes a better effort to be specific about the folks being targeted for ire, one will probably not feel as if they are being taken out of context or misconstrued, which is always a danger when talking in cliched stereotype.

Correct, if molson wanted to get his point across like he claims, then this would have been sufficient:

". . . .and I had flashbacks to all the people bitching about airport security today that's based on specific information."

Throwing in the word "all liberals" was not innocent and was in fact to take a shot at liberals. It's not that hard to understand. It may have been done subconscioiusly, but it was still done.

Last edited by Vinatieri for Prez : 07-02-2007 at 11:28 AM.
Vinatieri for Prez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2007, 12:02 PM   #202
chesapeake
College Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Arlington, VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianD View Post
Was Gore that green when he was running? I thought it was odd when all of his global warming discussions happened because I didn't remember him taking that stance during the election. It is possible that I just wasn't paying attention very well at the time.

Gore had been talking about these issues when he first got on the House Commerce Committee back in 1977. It has always been the biggest string in his banjo, even if he plays others from time to time.

Last edited by chesapeake : 07-02-2007 at 12:07 PM.
chesapeake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2007, 12:37 PM   #203
chesapeake
College Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Arlington, VA
Originally Posted by Glengoyne
This is true, but I'm wondering how much of the increase in domestic spending is due to "The War on Terror" the Big ticket item is of course the "Department of Homeland Security", but I'm thinking there has to be others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho View Post
This appears to be a pretty decent breakdown by agency of the latest budget proposal. The increases are spelled out, but not graphed.

Most of the increase in discretionary spending since 9/11 is due to the Iraq war and the war on terror. Mandatory spending -- programs like Social Security and Medicare where, if you qualify, you get payments -- have also been a major contributor to increased spending. Throw in hundreds of billions of tax cuts at the same time and you have a recipe for big, fat deficit.

The House and Senate are proposing funding increases for just about every agency, but most would see increases that outpace inflation by between 1-2 percent. Notable exceptions are the Departments of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security all of which would get increases at or near 10 percent. The VA is a special case. The Administration, with the last couple of Congress's rubber stamp, has so f-ed up veterans medical care that a big investment is needed to fix the system.

So that is a long answer to say that Glengoyne is essentially right.

That's your budget in a nutshell. You may unglaze your eyes now.
chesapeake is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:53 PM.



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.