Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
When the pool is out of over 100,000,000, it's pretty slim margins all around.
common sense from the media... refreshing...
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.2
- Start date
When the pool is out of over 100,000,000, it's pretty slim margins all around.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
she has heard Obama use that word so often she figured she would try it out.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You shouldn't talk to people like that. Darla gets mad.
The point dung is that you use the total number because you know the stupid people like Desh are easily impressed by large numbers. In reality, it was a stupid attempt at a point on your part.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
How about you tell us who stated Rep control of the House gave a mandate of support for Rep policies?
LOL. You're the one that brought up Social Security, not me. The House Republicans didn't even hold a vote on a bill (to the extent one actually existed). That had nothing to do with the Democrats doing anything "unprecedented" and had everything to do with no one liking what Bush wanted to do.
Also, too, the filibuster of judicial nominations was not new. See Paez, Richard.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Dear straw man maker... where did he say the numbers were the same thing? He stated that the margin of victory doesn't give either party a mandate. Then you try and pretend he said that 4.5 million is the same as 1.2 million?
You're an idiot.
Yeah, and I'm not good at math, but my sense is that being on the winning end by 4.5 million is a bigger margin than being on the losing end by 1.2 million. But, yeah, I guess we can call it even.
Uh, he made the comparison in the first instance. Not me.
So, like, fuck yourself with mashed potatoes, hot shot.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
He did not make the comparison in the manner you projected. He did not state that 4.5 million is the same as 1.2 million. You created that little straw man all on your own. Hot shot.
LOL. He implied that what flows from winning by 4.5 million is no different from losing by 1.5 million. If you want to pretend that I created a strawman by drawing th e reasonable inferences from his posts, enjoy.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
He was talking about the margin of victory being narrow in both cases. You tried to turn that into 'u don't know that 4.5 million is different than 1.5 million, ur math sucks'
A complete strawman; there was nothing reasonable about your inferences
No, he said that the margin of victory was narrow in both cases and that the conclusion to be drawn from a 4.5 million vote margin of victory for the President and a -1.2 million vote margin of "victory" for the House Republicans is "that there isn't great support for either party or its policies and it's pretty damn foolish to think otherwise."
I disagreed and with a healthy dose of sarcasm.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
whatever dung... we can all read what was written.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You clearly created a straw man.
It's a primative technique for dealing with the various aves that can wreak havoc on my crops, I know, but what the devil does that have to do with this thread?
White House Report Claims Sequestration Will Affect Federal Department That No Longer Exists
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/25/white-house-report-claims-sequestration
If you want a thorough agency-by-agency rundown of the budget cuts sequestration would deliver, the Office of Management and Budget has you covered. In compliance with The Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012, the OMB sent a detailed report to Congress in September 2012. But there's a small problem with the report: One of the cuts it warns against would affect an agency that no longer exists--and didn't exist when the OMB sent its report to congress.
The first line item on page 121 of the OMB's September 2012 report says that under sequestration the National Drug Intelligence Center would lose $2 million of its $20 million budget. While that's slightly more than 8.2 percent (rounding error or scare tactic?), the bigger problem is that the National Drug Intelligence Center shuttered its doors on June 15, 2012--three months before the OMB issued its report to Congress.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/25/white-house-report-claims-sequestration
If you want a thorough agency-by-agency rundown of the budget cuts sequestration would deliver, the Office of Management and Budget has you covered. In compliance with The Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012, the OMB sent a detailed report to Congress in September 2012. But there's a small problem with the report: One of the cuts it warns against would affect an agency that no longer exists--and didn't exist when the OMB sent its report to congress.
The first line item on page 121 of the OMB's September 2012 report says that under sequestration the National Drug Intelligence Center would lose $2 million of its $20 million budget. While that's slightly more than 8.2 percent (rounding error or scare tactic?), the bigger problem is that the National Drug Intelligence Center shuttered its doors on June 15, 2012--three months before the OMB issued its report to Congress.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LOL...
Why would they do that.....this is what Obama wanted, sequester is his brainstorm, he wanted it and said he would VETO any
bill to stop it.....even I'm beginning to like it......
By the way, whats wrong with Democrats submitting a bill to null and void the sequester cuts ?