Hide Comments Below
  • -3
  • -2
  • -1
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • off
  • Another republican talking point destroyed



    Comment 0
    Cool
  • vote cool
  • vote uncool
  • Terms of Service Violation
  • strike inappropriate
  • not inappropriate
  • Other
  • sunlight
  • kick from thread
  • get permlink
  • Tagged with : reign in stupidity , tard fight

    What are tags?
    Comments 1 through 100 of 170 shown. Page 1 2
    phil_herup 8976 2012-02-09 10:44:36.0 login to vote score 1
    Nice try....















    Plenty more stuff out there supporting Gingrich's claim. Did you really think Newt would go there if he could not back it up?
    farkmeblind 482 2012-02-09 10:58:54.0 login to vote score 1
    Lies and the lying liars who tell them.
    phil_herup 8976 2012-02-09 11:06:31.0 login to vote score 1
    Sunlight for Comment 3919342

    Strike from anonymous user
    Un-strike from anonymous user

    Seriously?

    [Are you sure that this comment is Illegal or in violation of our Terms of Service?

    \nInappropriate should not be used to suppress dissenting views]



    Libs trying to silence the truth? ...must be one of those days ending in "y" again.

    Whomever un-struck it... thank you.

    code_7 6865 2012-02-09 11:07:36.0 login to vote score 3
    farkmeblind: Lies and the lying liars who tell them.

    Are you saying that you trust the Representative and his numbers more than phail and whomever made up his statistics?
    farkmeblind 482 2012-02-09 11:07:49.0 login to vote score 1
    I think it's funny how incredibly indignant R apologists get when they get called out on their bullshit.

    Whiners.
    phil_herup 8976 2012-02-09 11:08:24.0 login to vote score 1
    farkmeblind: Lies and the lying liars who tell them.


    Look pretty clear that Luis Gutierrez(D) is the liar in this case.

    It was probably you who tried to get my post struck wasn't it? Not that you would be honest about it.
    phil_herup 8976 2012-02-09 11:08:49.0 login to vote score 1
    code_7: Are you saying that you trust the Representative and his numbers more than phail and whomever made up his statistics?

    They are all over the web.
    untrustworthy 1 2012-02-09 11:10:06.0 login to vote score 1
    code_7: Are you saying that you trust the Representative and his numbers more than phail and whomever made up his statistics?

    The representative didn't really make a comparison to obama's administration numbers. He focused almost exclusively on the previous administration.
    farkmeblind 482 2012-02-09 11:11:08.0 login to vote score 1
    code_7: Are you saying that you trust the Representative and his numbers more than phail and whomever made up his statistics?

    Indeed. In fact, a large proportion of the "numbers" cited here tend to be:
    Opinions characterized as "facts"
    Unacknowledged biased sources
    Numbers so spun by the comment context so as to fail to resemble their original contextual meaning in the source document

    Phail is just stupid and easily outed. The insidious ones seem even-handed, but they just hide their prejudices better while pretending they have none.
    sloth 222 2012-02-09 11:12:18.0 login to vote score 0
    code_7: Are you saying that you trust the Representative and his numbers more than phail and whomever made up his statistics?

    Funnily enough, the Rep didn't give any comparative numbers - or, at least, not any mentioned in TFA. He gave numbers for the two Georges, then said "Obama invested in the programs because he loves people" without giving any numbers.
    little hands of concrete 1804 2012-02-09 11:15:46.0 login to vote score 9
    I'll just leave this factcheck.org's analysis of the foodstamp president claim.
    farkmeblind 482 2012-02-09 11:16:01.0 login to vote score 0
    This morning's program on MPR was about self control. I bet I know who missed it ;^D
    so vote republican 6688 2012-02-09 11:16:03.0 login to vote score 3
    untrustworthy: The representative didn't really make a comparison to obama's administration numbers. He focused almost exclusively on the previous administration.

    To be fair, I feel that my voting for Bush in 2008 was a mistake, and I'm DEFINITELY not going to vote for Bush again in 2012.
    grotfabrieken rubbishhausen 561 2012-02-09 11:17:12.0 login to vote score 2
    little hands of concrete: I'll just leave this factcheck.org's analysis of the foodstamp president claim.

    Oh, SNAP.
    eddyatwork 998 2012-02-09 11:17:46.0 login to vote score 1
    LEAVE PHIL ALONE!
    so vote republican 6688 2012-02-09 11:18:16.0 login to vote score 2
    little hands of concrete: I'll just leave this factcheck.org's analysis of the foodstamp president claim.

    There is number/year and total number. I would suggest focusing on the latter is actually more disingenuous.

    But I guess if you want to make the case that Bush is MORE compassionate than Obama, well, I suppose we can call him the "Don't-let-children-go-hungry" President instead...
    so vote republican 6688 2012-02-09 11:19:04.0 login to vote score 0
    Why doesn't Obama care about Americans as much as George W. Bush did?
    sloth 222 2012-02-09 11:21:58.0 login to vote score 4
    little hands of concrete: I'll just leave this factcheck.org's analysis of the foodstamp president claim.

    That article brings up some good points, and some dumb ones. For example: It's a good point that the rate of increase picked up before Obama took office - indeed, it would have been a better point to say that it doesn't really even make sense to tie this to Presidential administration in any event. In comparison, it's a bad point to state the cases added under Obama in 3 years are marginally less than cases added under Dubya in 8 years - I'm not sure it really helps to support their case that Newt was wrong to say more have been added under Obama when your own numbers show the rate at which new cases are being added under Obama is 7.8/3 times what the rate was under Dubya. That's just bad argument.
    quinblake 1476 2012-02-09 11:27:02.0 login to vote score 3
    Wait. So is making sure people aren't hungry good or bad?
    untrustworthy 1 2012-02-09 11:27:11.0 login to vote score 1
    And, fwiw, Phil's charts all appear accurate. Gingrich's claim is technically wrong, but so is the representative if he thinks he has refuted anything by focusing purely on previous administrations and not making an objective comparison to current admin numbers.
    sloth 222 2012-02-09 11:27:43.0 login to vote score 1
    quinblake: Wait. So is making sure people aren't hungry good or bad?

    Depends - are we talking about your guy or the other guy?
    quinblake 1476 2012-02-09 11:27:59.0 login to vote score 3
    lol at phil thinking we can't find the sunlight on individual posts.
    untrustworthy 1 2012-02-09 11:28:21.0 login to vote score 3
    quinblake: Wait. So is making sure people aren't hungry good or bad?

    Depends. Are we watching Survivor or The Biggest Loser?
    so vote republican 6688 2012-02-09 11:28:55.0 login to vote score 2
    quinblake: lol at phil thinking we can't find the sunlight on individual posts.

    Strikes are anonymous. Uncools are not.
    sloth 222 2012-02-09 11:29:03.0 login to vote score 3
    untrustworthy: And, fwiw, Phil's charts all appear accurate.

    I find it interesting that his normal BS rarely gets struck or uncooled, but the one time he actually provides relevant data he gets both. Well, kinda interesting.
    quinblake 1476 2012-02-09 11:29:09.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy: Depends. Are we watching Survivor or The Biggest Loser?

    Children and The Elderly.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-02-09 11:29:21.0 login to vote score 2
    untrustworthy: Depends. Are we watching Survivor or The Biggest Loser?

    Chris Christie is back in the race?
    little hands of concrete 1804 2012-02-09 11:29:38.0 login to vote score 0
    sloth: That article brings up some good points, and some dumb ones. For example: It's a good point that the rate of increase picked up before Obama took office - indeed, it would have been a better point to say that it doesn't really even make sense to tie this to Presidential administration in any event. In comparison, it's a bad point to state the cases added under Obama in 3 years are marginally less than cases added under Dubya in 8 years - I'm not sure it really helps to support their case that Newt was wrong to say more have been added under Obama when your own numbers show the rate at which new cases are being added under Obama is 7.8/3 times what the rate was under Dubya. That's just bad argument.

    You should call them and tell them.


    flashlv 1657 2012-02-09 11:29:40.0 login to vote score 0
    Another non-talking point destroyed.
    quinblake 1476 2012-02-09 11:29:46.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: Strikes are anonymous. Uncools are not.

    Yeah I know they're anonymous. If I want to see whether a post has had a strike I can look for myself.
    sloth 222 2012-02-09 11:30:48.0 login to vote score 1
    little hands of concrete: You should call them and tell them.

    Sounds like work.
    keerbip 4358 2012-02-09 11:31:07.0 login to vote score 5
    quinblake: Yeah I know they're anonymous. If I want to see whether a post has had a strike I can look for myself.

    You can look for yourself, but, since you're the most dishonest person here, you can't trust what you see until phil tells you what to believe.
    flashlv 1657 2012-02-09 11:32:37.0 login to vote score 0
    Another non-talking point destroyed.
    quinblake: Wait. So is making sure people aren't hungry good or bad?

    Um, that's not the point though :/
    untrustworthy 1 2012-02-09 11:33:13.0 login to vote score 4
    sloth: I find it interesting that his normal BS rarely gets struck or uncooled, but the one time he actually provides relevant data he gets both. Well, kinda interesting.

    I tend to think objective fact is usually cool. Certainly not worth of being struck.
    flashlv 1657 2012-02-09 11:34:13.0 login to vote score 0
    sloth: I find it interesting that his normal BS rarely gets struck or uncooled, but the one time he actually provides relevant data he gets both. Well, kinda interesting.

    FMB is butthurt about it I guess.
    sloth 222 2012-02-09 11:34:41.0 login to vote score 0
    keerbip: you're the most dishonest person here[, Quin]

    What was the methodology for rating that?
    osirisothedead 1858 2012-02-09 11:34:52.0 login to vote score 1
    sloth: I find it interesting that his normal BS rarely gets struck or uncooled, but the one time he actually provides relevant data he gets both. Well, kinda interesting.

    I keep away from uncool votes for the most part. It's extremely rare that I'll vote anything uncool but I particularly avoid phil's post because it turns the thread in to a cesspool of meta when he starts going full flash and whines about votes (sorta like the direction this one's going).
    flashlv 1657 2012-02-09 11:35:58.0 login to vote score 0
    osirisothedead: I keep away from uncool votes for the most part. It's extremely rare that I'll vote anything uncool but I particularly avoid phil's post because it turns the thread in to a cesspool of meta when he starts going full flash and whines about votes (sorta like the direction this one's going).


    Unlike the meta you are posting now.

    sloth 222 2012-02-09 11:36:05.0 login to vote score 2
    untrustworthy: I tend to think objective fact is usually cool. Certainly not worth of being struck.

    That's why I unstruck it. And I feel dirty about it, but not as dirty as if I'd let an actual cite get buried for no good reason. So, whoever struck it, thanks for making me feel dirty, jerk.
    quick1 501 2012-02-09 11:36:36.0 login to vote score 1
    flashlv: Another non-talking point destroyed.

    Republicans haven't been talking about Obama being the Food Stamp President?
    keerbip 4358 2012-02-09 11:37:00.0 login to vote score 1
    sloth: What was the methodology for rating that?

    She disagreed with phil.
    osirisothedead 1858 2012-02-09 11:37:20.0 login to vote score 0
    flashlv: Unlike the meta you are posting now.

    Yes, quite unlike it, Generalissimo Generalization.
    untrustworthy 1 2012-02-09 11:37:24.0 login to vote score 0
    sloth: That's why I unstruck it. And I feel dirty about it, but not as dirty as if I'd let an actual cite get buried for no good reason. So, whoever struck it, thanks for making me feel dirty, jerk.

    Well, thanks for unstriking it. ;)
    flashlv 1657 2012-02-09 11:38:39.0 login to vote score 0
    quick1: Republicans haven't been talking about Obama being the Food Stamp President?

    People talking about it doesn't make it a talking point. It is just people talking.
    sloth 222 2012-02-09 11:38:54.0 login to vote score 0
    keerbip: She disagreed with phil.

    That lying foreign jezebel!
    Err, ok, I don't see how that makes you dishonest, but whatevs.
    osirisothedead 1858 2012-02-09 11:40:02.0 login to vote score 0
    sloth: That lying foreign jezebel!
    Err, ok, I don't see how that makes you dishonest, but whatevs.


    phil's a saint. He's incapable of telling a lie therefore if anybody disagrees with him, they're totally dishonest.
    flashlv 1657 2012-02-09 11:40:07.0 login to vote score 0
    quick1: Republicans haven't been talking about Obama being the Food Stamp President?

    Even if it were a talking point, phil posted proof it's not incorrect.
    code_7 6865 2012-02-09 11:40:44.0 login to vote score 0
    sloth: Funnily enough, the Rep didn't give any comparative numbers - or, at least, not any mentioned in TFA. He gave numbers for the two Georges, then said "Obama invested in the programs because he loves people" without giving any numbers.

    Actually, it was more of a statement on phail (and perception of his "facts") rather than the accuracy of either of their numbers.

    Phail may has well be in advertising because every thing he posts is like clumps of shit coming across my monitor and everything he posts is suspect, solely by him posting it...
    flashlv 1657 2012-02-09 11:40:54.0 login to vote score 0
    osirisothedead: phil's a saint. He's incapable of telling a lie therefore if anybody disagrees with him, they're totally dishonest.

    Just as dishonest disagreeing just because it's phil.
    sloth 222 2012-02-09 11:42:01.0 login to vote score 0
    osirisothedead: phil's a saint. He's incapable of telling a lie therefore if anybody disagrees with him, they're totally dishonest.

    Yes, I'm familiar with his posting style - and also the person who's adopting that style in this thread. It was kind of a rhetorical question :)
    keerbip 4358 2012-02-09 11:42:51.0 login to vote score 7
    The "talking point" aspect of it is that repeating "Obama is the Food Stamp President" over and over again convinces certain simple-minded people that Obama invented food stamps.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-02-09 11:43:41.0 login to vote score 4
    flashlv: FMB is butthurt about it I guess.

    flashlv: Unlike the meta you are posting now.

    Pot. Kettle. Flash.
    osirisothedead 1858 2012-02-09 11:43:54.0 login to vote score 1
    flashlv: Just as dishonest disagreeing just because it's phil.

    I don't disagree with him just to disagree with him. In fact I agree with him on quite a lot.
    zolividor 642 2012-02-09 11:43:55.0 login to vote score 3
    quinblake 1476 2012-02-09 11:44:30.0 login to vote score 1
    sloth: That lying foreign jezebel!
    Err, ok, I don't see how that makes you dishonest, but whatevs.


    phil has called me dishonest multiple times, keerbip was probably referring to that.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-02-09 11:44:33.0 login to vote score 2
    sloth: What was the methodology for rating that?

    She's actually an A cup.
    quick1 501 2012-02-09 11:44:34.0 login to vote score 0
    osirisothedead: I don't disagree with him just to disagree with him. In fact I agree with him on quite a lot.

    You both wanked it to Peggy Bundy?
    osirisothedead 1858 2012-02-09 11:45:57.0 login to vote score 0
    quinblake: phil has called me dishonest multiple times, keerbip was probably referring to that.

    Your level of dishonesty is at about the same place as Romney's "most qualified person EVAR to be President".
    osirisothedead 1858 2012-02-09 11:47:51.0 login to vote score 2
    quick1: You both wanked it to Peggy Bundy?

    No... but I did fantasize about David Faustino back in my teen years.
    quinblake 1476 2012-02-09 11:48:40.0 login to vote score 1
    osirisothedead: Your level of dishonesty is at about the same place as Romney's "most qualified person EVAR to be President".

    And now that this thread is all about phil, and not a discussion of the previous Bush(es) use of food stamps, mission accomplished.
    little hands of concrete 1804 2012-02-09 11:50:45.0 login to vote score 0
    Well, at least this discussion is a distraction of why it is important for Obama to be labeled the Food Stamp President.
    farkmeblind 482 2012-02-09 11:52:06.0 login to vote score 0
    quinblake: And now that this thread is all about phil, and not a discussion of the previous Bush(es) use of food stamps, mission accomplished.

    Yes, indeed. There must never ever be any criticism of the GOP, even if it is completely warranted.
    quinblake 1476 2012-02-09 11:53:35.0 login to vote score 1
    farkmeblind: Yes, indeed. There must never ever be any criticism of the GOP, even if it is completely warranted.

    Even if it's in the text of the referenced article.
    surfnazi 932 2012-02-09 11:57:04.0 login to vote score 0
    phil_herup: Nice try....















    Plenty more stuff out there supporting Gingrich's claim. Did you really think Newt would go there if he could not back it up?


    I've learned from Newt that cause and effect are interchangeable.
    fatsean 3838 2012-02-09 11:58:24.0 login to vote score 4
    I for one think it is great that Obama has provided Food Stamps to hungry Americans unable to get jobs as we recover from the recession caused by poorly regulated financial giants.

    He should own it. His opponents say this like it is a bad thing, like more Americans should be going hungry while the economy recovers.
    flashlv 1657 2012-02-09 11:59:02.0 login to vote score 0
    quinblake: And now that this thread is all about phil, and not a discussion of the previous Bush(es) use of food stamps, mission accomplished.

    Bushs use of food stamps?

    *facepalm*

    when did Bush use food stamps?
    flashlv 1657 2012-02-09 11:59:38.0 login to vote score 0
    fatsean: I for one think it is great that Obama has provided Food Stamps to hungry Americans unable to get jobs as we recover from the recession caused by poorly regulated financial giants.

    He should own it. His opponents say this like it is a bad thing, like more Americans should be going hungry while the economy recovers.


    You also FAIL to see what the point is.




    so vote republican 6688 2012-02-09 11:59:54.0 login to vote score 0
    quinblake: And now that this thread is all about phil, and not a discussion of the previous Bush(es) use of food stamps, mission accomplished.

    Errr, it was pretty clearly discussed.

    1) The claim Obama is adding more total people is incorrect.

    2) The claim Bush added a higher percentage of the population, or at a higher rate is incorrect.

    3) Since the dictionary hasn't yet added a definition for "Food Stamp President", you can't really say which is MORE incorrect. It's also silly to use the term in the first place.

    4) It's even more silly since people will then argue over whether it's a good or bad thing anyway.

    Glad I could clear that up for you.
    fatsean 3838 2012-02-09 12:00:17.0 login to vote score 1
    Shit, he should start calling himself the Tax Cut and Unemployment Extending President.
    quinblake 1476 2012-02-09 12:00:51.0 login to vote score 0
    flashlv: Bushs use of food stamps?

    *facepalm*

    when did Bush use food stamps?


    It's in the text of the article referenced at the top of the page.
    sloth 222 2012-02-09 12:01:22.0 login to vote score 4
    quinblake: And now that this thread is all about phil, and not a discussion of the previous Bush(es) use of food stamps, mission accomplished.

    To be fair, this is like bizarro thread - whereas in most threads phail leads off with the meta and retard talking points, in this one he led off with actual data and was the recipient of meta and retard talking points. I know, weird, right?
    bluegargoyle 635 2012-02-09 12:02:15.0 login to vote score 0
    flashlv: You also FAIL to see what the point is.

    Indeed. The POINT, obviously, is that anytime food stamp use increases from a previous term, that means the president whose term an increase occurs in is very very bad.
    quinblake 1476 2012-02-09 12:02:26.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: Errr, it was pretty clearly discussed.

    1) The claim Obama is adding more total people is incorrect.

    2) The claim Bush added a higher percentage of the population, or at a higher rate is incorrect.

    3) Since the dictionary hasn't yet added a definition for "Food Stamp President", you can't really say which is MORE incorrect. It's also silly to use the term in the first place.

    4) It's even more silly since people will then argue over whether it's a good or bad thing anyway.

    Glad I could clear that up for you.


    Glad you could clear what up for me?
    flashlv 1657 2012-02-09 12:02:49.0 login to vote score 0
    quinblake: It's in the text of the article referenced at the top of the page.

    No, it's not. He never used them.
    flashlv 1657 2012-02-09 12:03:29.0 login to vote score 0
    bluegargoyle: Indeed. The POINT, obviously, is that anytime food stamp use increases from a previous term, that means the president whose term an increase occurs in is very very bad.

    Previous term?

    *facepalm*
    quinblake 1476 2012-02-09 12:03:31.0 login to vote score 2
    sloth: To be fair, this is like bizarro thread - whereas in most threads phail leads off with the meta and retard talking points, in this one he led off with actual data and was the recipient of meta and retard talking points. I know, weird, right?

    What are you talking about? His second post was a sunlight copy/paste.
    quinblake 1476 2012-02-09 12:04:27.0 login to vote score 1
    flashlv: No, it's not. He never used them.

    Your a idiot.
    sloth 222 2012-02-09 12:04:34.0 login to vote score 2
    so vote republican: 3) Since the dictionary hasn't yet added a definition for "Food Stamp President", you can't really say which is MORE incorrect. It's also silly to use the term in the first place.

    It's especially silly because the rate of food stamp use is primarily driven by A) the legislative triggers for eligibility (as this is an entitlement program) and B) Unemployment/underemployment rates. Guess which one of those the President has a direct impact on?
    farkmeblind 482 2012-02-09 12:04:39.0 login to vote score 0
    quinblake: Even if it's in the text of the referenced article.

    Well now, that's prima facie evidence that this source is terribly compromised because both political parties are completely the same, donchaknow ;^P.
    flashlv 1657 2012-02-09 12:04:40.0 login to vote score 0
    quinblake: What are you talking about? His second post was a sunlight copy/paste.

    Wow.....
    flashlv 1657 2012-02-09 12:05:31.0 login to vote score 0
    quinblake: Your a idiot.

    You said he did.
    flashlv 1657 2012-02-09 12:05:59.0 login to vote score 0
    Your


    tagged
    bluegargoyle 635 2012-02-09 12:06:21.0 login to vote score 5
    flashlv: Previous term?

    *facepalm*


    You do tend to get a lot of credit for being retarded Flash, but pretending to be more stupid than you actually are isn't going to help. If food stamps are used more under a new president than under the previous president, that's just awfulbuckets, right?
    sloth 222 2012-02-09 12:06:29.0 login to vote score 6
    quinblake: What are you talking about? His second post was a sunlight copy/paste.

    Yes, it was. Based on retard and meta posts between his first and second posts, and the strange decision of someone to strike an actual reference before there was any discussion at all in the thread. Phil may be in the wrong about 99.999% of the time on this site, but it's hard to say he's the one who tarded up this particular thread.
    flashlv 1657 2012-02-09 12:07:57.0 login to vote score 0
    bluegargoyle: You do tend to get a lot of credit for being retarded Flash, but pretending to be more stupid than you actually are isn't going to help. If food stamps are used more under a new president than under the previous president, that's just awfulbuckets, right?

    2010 is still last term.

    You are the retard bud. It's people like you that are the problem. Nothing is on Obama.
    farkmeblind 482 2012-02-09 12:08:46.0 login to vote score 4


    See that rise beginning in 2008? Boy, am I ever glad that was during Obama's Presidency!
    quinblake 1476 2012-02-09 12:09:44.0 login to vote score 1
    sloth: Yes, it was. Based on retard and meta posts between his first and second posts, and the strange decision of someone to strike an actual reference before there was any discussion at all in the thread. Phil may be in the wrong about 99.999% of the time on this site, but it's hard to say he's the one who tarded up this particular thread.

    He posts sunlight copy/pastes all the time in other threads. He did it again in this thread. I don't think it's hard to say he tarded it up at all. YMMV.
    flashlv 1657 2012-02-09 12:09:53.0 login to vote score 0
    farkmeblind: See that rise beginning in 2008? Boy, am I ever glad that was during Obama's Presidency!

    *facepalm*
    quinblake 1476 2012-02-09 12:10:22.0 login to vote score 2
    flashlv: Your


    tagged


    Just so you know, I also purposely used "a idiot" instead of "an idiot".
    flashlv 1657 2012-02-09 12:11:40.0 login to vote score 0
    quinblake: Just so you know, I also purposely used "a idiot" instead of "an idiot".

    Sure.
    intentionally left blank 2011 2012-02-09 12:12:17.0 login to vote score 0
    tagged: tard fight
    untrustworthy 1 2012-02-09 12:13:48.0 login to vote score 4
    quinblake: He posts sunlight copy/pastes all the time in other threads. He did it again in this thread. I don't think it's hard to say he tarded it up at all. YMMV.

    I blame the tard who struck a post that wasn't a violation of the TOS. It wasn't warranted.
    sabine 745 2012-02-09 12:15:02.0 login to vote score 2
    farkmeblind: See that rise beginning in 2008?

    That graph should be in the "why the Y axis should include zero" museum.
    quinblake 1476 2012-02-09 12:15:29.0 login to vote score 2
    untrustworthy: I blame the tard who struck a post that wasn't a violation of the TOS. It wasn't warranted.

    Whatever, we can all look at the sunlight. Don't need to see it pasted in a post as well. It would be like pasting the entire contents of the article in a post.
    fatsean 3838 2012-02-09 12:16:21.0 login to vote score 0
    sloth: It's especially silly because the rate of food stamp use is primarily driven by A) the legislative triggers for eligibility (as this is an entitlement program) and B) Unemployment/underemployment rates. Guess which one of those the President has a direct impact on?

    Well yeah, it is a stupid complaint on the face of it. The only way it can make sense is if you claim that the president is doing A,B,C and not doing X,Y,Z which is causing more people to become eligible for food stamps. That's a tough row of dots to connect.
    untrustworthy 1 2012-02-09 12:16:24.0 login to vote score 0
    quinblake: Whatever, we can all look at the sunlight. Don't need to see it pasted in a post as well. It would be like pasting the entire contents of the article in a post.

    Okay. I'm sorta indifferent about it otherwise, but I get your point.
    farkmeblind 482 2012-02-09 12:17:53.0 login to vote score 1
    sabine: That graph should be in the "why the Y axis should include zero" museum.

    That's a BIG museum.
    flashlv 1657 2012-02-09 12:18:26.0 login to vote score -1
    quinblake: Whatever, we can all look at the sunlight. Don't need to see it pasted in a post as well. It would be like pasting the entire contents of the article in a post.

    Whhhhhiiiiiinnnnneeeeee
    farkmeblind 482 2012-02-09 12:18:28.0 login to vote score 1
    fatsean: Well yeah, it is a stupid complaint on the face of it. The only way it can make sense is if you claim that the president is doing A,B,C and not doing X,Y,Z which is causing more people to become eligible for food stamps. That's a tough row of dots to connect.

    And yet the GOP is trying to connect them.
    quinblake 1476 2012-02-09 12:19:02.0 login to vote score 3
    Should start calling Bush the Timestamp president for that fucked up daylight savings time change.
    Comments 1 through 100 of 170 shown. Page 1 2
    If you logged in, you could post here.