Lol. So I don't even know my own beliefs now? sure bud, great case you're making there. Your intelligence is sure shining through.
Printable View
You are the one claiming that all laws like speeding laws are in place for safety because the government cares about folks. It wasn?t until you were called on how stupid that was and explained to how you are being used that now suddenly you are the world?s biggest skeptic. You seem confused, but that?s not all that surprising after reading most of your posts in this thread. 😂
I don't rank Manchin #1 because I agree with him the most on the issues, just that I appreciate the fact that someone from West Virginia of all places is the difference in Biden's agenda passing (well, some of it at least...) and none of it passing. And despite all of Manchin's rhetoric and grandstanding, he generally comes through in the end after making some inconsequential change he can make a lot of hay over.
ETA - I like this take from Matt Yglesias (my favorite political Twitter follow)
[tweet]1472585385939283972[/tweet]
That's not actually quite what I said, and you said nothing I did not already know. You did not explain a thing, if it's not already clear let me clue you in that you don't appear to know anything that I don't already know. You sure as hell haven't dropped anything resembling wisdom in this thread. The confusion is not on my end.
But yes, most of the people voting into place and enforcing traffic laws do so for safety. There's not some massive, secret grift fund that all the state legislators and city alderman and all cops are in on. I never said the government cares about folks. Most legislators could really not give a shit, but at least they vote yes before they head off for a 3 drink lunch.
Pro tip, this is actually literally the only thing the Gingrich Congress did. They came into power on the Contract with America, and their first vote was to relax speed limits on highways. States only after that had the ability to set them wherever they wanted, previously it was 55mph. And each of the many state votes that followed set new limits based on safety. No one gave a shit about fuel conservation, this was the 90s not the 70s. After that vote the GOP tried to kill the Clean Water Act, blatant grifting.
Dak, don't get him started on "statistics", "sample size", "SD", "data analytics" etc.
That's where the fun is.....
https://c.tenor.com/IPS5fMDprFMAAAAC...w-it-works.gif
It doesn?t take a Rhodes scholar to call out someone who lied on them. I would have called it a mistake but you continue to state that I said something I did not say. That?s fallacy & a lie. You are obviously not the sharpest knife in anyones drawer. I hope this helps.
The clean water act signed by out going Clinton that would have been almost impossible for local water utilities to adhere to? He and the Dems knew repubs would have to reverse it so the "repubs hate clean water" headline could hit CNN for 3 straight weeks. Kinda funny he did that after waiting 8 years; no?
To prove what?
You have literally admitted yourself that the definition was changed & followed it with a useful idiot type spin Lmao
You had the chance to say you made a mistake but you keep spinning it & now saying I haven?t proved it lol? Admit you made a mistake or just misunderstood & I?ll stop saying you lied.
Scooba must be on vacation. Wish they'd open up the old political board again.
I don't know, it can be fun to talk about this stuff, but is it really a productive use of time for everyone to talk at each other? Did anyone ever change their mind based on something they read there, or did people just dig in even more?
Back in the day, this exact scenario played out more than once in my house:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png