gbaji wrote:
They had a supermajority for at least the entire first year of Obama's term. That's not speculation.
lulz
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- It Makes No Sense..
It Makes No Sense..Follow
lulz
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
Will you do us a favor Kachi and with your keen sense of liberal awareness can you you please explain to all of us how George W caused the economic meltdown? and can you also inform us of what "brilliant" solutions Democrats came up with to save us all from the "George W Bush caused economic mess"?
For about all but four posters on this forum, I'd be happy to. Unfortunately, not for you.
Quote:
Right? You were wrong. They had a supermajority for at least the entire first year of Obama's term. That's not speculation.
It's already been explained why that wasn't the case, sans the point about conservative democrats, who get counted in with democrats but don't actually support a great deal of the democratic agenda.
Quote:
You said you were "mostly satisfied with the direction the country has been taking since 2008". Mostly satisfied isn't a comparison to some other bad choice. It stands on it's own. I don't think it's wrong for me to question what exactly makes you "mostly satisfied" with the performance of the Dems in the last two years.
Quibbling about semantics. What a surprise. Is that your only trick?
I am mostly satisfied with the direction of the country. Obviously the economy has not recovered yet, but it will. This isn't hard for you to understand unless you want it to be.
Quote:
I don't believe at all that most people agree that said spending yields a net return at all.
Are you ******** me? You realize how many politicians play up the importance of education spending as a part of their platform? It's because it works. People liked to hear it because they agree with it.
Quote:
you agreed that those works are meaningless.
No, I didn't. In fact, I argued very plainly that the words mean they are likely to continue to alot federal dollars to the Dept. of Education, who will use it to promote evidence-based recommendations, meaning effective and cost-efficient ones (because that's what they DO). The statement isn't meaningless at all.
#154ThiefX,
Posted: Feb 03 2011 at 12:08 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Translation: I can't so I'm hoping if I try and make a joke that nobody will notice that I don't know anything but what MSNBC and the Huffingtonpost tell me.
Right, I guess of all those four people, you'd be the least likely to understand why someone would feel that you're a waste of their time.
Kachi wrote:
Right, I guess of all those four people, you'd be the least likely to understand why someone would feel that you're a waste of their time.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Will you do us a favor Kachi and with your keen sense of liberal awareness can you you please explain to all of us how George W caused the economic meltdown? and can you also inform us of what "brilliant" solutions Democrats came up with to save us all from the "George W Bush caused economic mess"?
For about all but four posters on this forum, I'd be happy to. Unfortunately, not for you.
I'd love to see it. Mostly because George W. Bush didn't cause anything of the sort and you talking out of your *** amuses me.
EDIT: of course, I'm probably one of the 4 so damn my rotten luck.
Edited, Feb 3rd 2011 6:57am by MoebiusLord
I thought the 4 were Thiefx, varus, gbaji and Almalique.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
everyone knows liberals can't count.
Quote:
I'd love to see it. Mostly because George W. Bush didn't cause anything of the sort and you talking out of your *** amuses me.
I never said he did. Read better.
Quote:
I thought the 4 were Thiefx, varus, gbaji and Almalique.
Ugly gets a cookie.
I'm always accepting new applicants, though. Unfortunately Moe, you're probably safe because you're more bitter towards me than you are stupid in general. I'm afraid you're just not what we're looking for right now.
I'm diabetic. Thanks for nothing.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
It's made with Splenda!
now your just gaying it up.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
Why do you hate gay people?
I've heard that stuff increases the chances of pancreatic cancer.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
It's a cookie, not a life-time supply of cake.
Also: If you're diabetic and your choices are high blood sugar or pancreatic cancer, you have to consider that life without cookies is no life at all.
But serious derail: Splenda is totally safe. When they test stuff on mice/rats, they give them hundreds to thousands of times the amount that a human would consume every day over an extended period of time. You can't not have some kind of health problems when given that much of something. If it's safe enough for the FDA to approve it, it's safe enough to eat.
Edited, Feb 3rd 2011 2:15pm by Kachi
Also: If you're diabetic and your choices are high blood sugar or pancreatic cancer, you have to consider that life without cookies is no life at all.
But serious derail: Splenda is totally safe. When they test stuff on mice/rats, they give them hundreds to thousands of times the amount that a human would consume every day over an extended period of time. You can't not have some kind of health problems when given that much of something. If it's safe enough for the FDA to approve it, it's safe enough to eat.
Edited, Feb 3rd 2011 2:15pm by Kachi
I can do without the sweats, so I don't really care. What little I have is a small issue and very manageable with where my blood sugars are so far. I've only recently been diagnosed, but what changes I've already made to my diet and starting to exercise again have had huge affects on reducing my blood sugar.
The person who told me that it leads to pancreatic cancer was told directly by the person who did the study. That being said, it's not commonly accepted at this point, so could be utter horse ****.
The person who told me that it leads to pancreatic cancer was told directly by the person who did the study. That being said, it's not commonly accepted at this point, so could be utter horse ****.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Eh, it hasn't been observed in humans. Just because it happens to mice/rats doesn't mean it will to humans, either, especially when it only happens to a percentage of them (of unknown statistical significance) who are being fed their body weight in it daily. Plus, only a small percentage of sucralose is absorbed into the body at all, and of that, only a small percentage is metabolized. 99% of it goes out when you hit the John. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's extremely unlikely. Researchers like to overstate their case, and then there are leeches/morons in the health industry who turn it into their own industry. Like how the vaccines=autism thing became a business for some people. People have written books and started webpages about how Splenda is bad for you. Some of them are misguided, and others are crooks, but none of them have a substantive basis for their claims.
Anyway, glad you're having success with managing it.
Anyway, glad you're having success with managing it.
The jury is still out on Splenda, but a lot of previous artificial sweeteners have ended up having quite a few side effects with long term use. So, take that as you will.
Just as Planned.
Right, it hasn't been around long enough to know what the long-term effects will be, but even those side effects that have appeared in other sweeteners are mostly rather minor and generally only appear in people who are using rather large amounts daily (i.e., they drink a lot of coffee, tea, soda, or other sweet drinks). If you limit it to your food intake and aren't consuming tons of sweets, it's extremely unlikely that you'll experience any noticeable effects.
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
I'd love to see it. Mostly because George W. Bush didn't cause anything of the sort and you talking out of your *** amuses me.
I never said he did. Read better.
Really? Because it sure looks to me like you think you can explain how he did. Of course, I know how to use the language, so perhaps it's just a case of you being an inarticulate mother f'ucker.
Moebiuslord wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
can you you please explain to all of us how George W caused the economic meltdown
I'd be happy to.
I'd love to see it.
Quote:
Really? Because it sure looks to me like you think you can explain how he did. Of course, I know how to use the language, so perhaps it's just a case of you being an inarticulate mother f'ucker.
Maybe if you quoted the post he was actually talking about rather than my ********** off" response:
Quote:
The GOP offered no brilliant solutions to the crisis, and anyone who attributes to the Obama administration/Congress rather than the Bush era should be laughed off the forum.
As in, the eight years of his administration. And honestly, I believe part of it can be traced back to the GOP congress under the Clinton administration, and the democrats share the burden on that. All I was saying is that the crisis is infinitely more attributable to actions taken during the Bush administration than anything that has happened since Obama took office.
Kachi wrote:
As in, the eight years of his administration. And honestly, I believe part of it can be traced back to the GOP congress under the Clinton administration, and the democrats share the burden on that. All I was saying is that the crisis is infinitely more attributable to actions taken during the Bush administration than anything that has happened since Obama took office.
So, it was congress under Clinton, the Administration when Bush took office and the previous administration now that the current window licker is in power?
Got it.
MoebiusLord wrote:
now that the current window licker is in power?
Speaker Boehner might be an orange skinned weirdo with the emotional barriers of an infant but I don't think you should call him a "window licker".
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 280
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (280)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- It Makes No Sense..
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC