Let me be the first to give the Romney/Ryan duo the clever nickname of Rymney.
It only remains to be seen if they can live up to this clever monicker

On 8/12/12 2:12 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
Let me be the first to give the Romney/Ryan duo the clever nickname of Rymney.
It only remains to be seen if they can live up to this clever monicker

They don't have to live up to that lofty goal. They just have to
be better than the competition. It's just like sports in a way.

"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message
...
On 8/12/12 2:12 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
Let me be the first to give the Romney/Ryan duo the clever nickname of
Rymney.
It only remains to be seen if they can live up to this clever monicker

They don't have to live up to that lofty goal. They just have to be
better than the competition. It's just like sports in a way.

Without the drug test ...

On 8/12/2012 3:12 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
Let me be the first to give the Romney/Ryan duo the clever nickname of Rymney.
It only remains to be seen if they can live up to this clever monicker


Beats Bidama

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:12:44 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

Let me be the first to give the Romney/Ryan duo the clever nickname of Rymney.
It only remains to be seen if they can live up to this clever monicker

Just like a liberal. Start name calling.

When the debates start in October I'll be making popcorn and having
ice cream and laughing my ass off when the two Democrats get taken to
the wood shed.
--

On Sunday, August 12, 2012 1:12:44 PM UTC-6, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
Let me be the first to give the Romney/Ryan duo the clever nickname of Rymney.

It only remains to be seen if they can live up to this clever monicker

IMHO they're both twits. Ryan is a simple Simon from hicksville and Romney
is a pompous ass. They are for the rich and **** on the poor...they can suck
lemons.

In article ,
wrote:

Given that 100 mil Americans are now receiving govt handouts,

and you honestly believe that the republican plutocrats are not receiving gov't
handouts?

In article , Oren
wrote:



Paul Ryan Only Passed 2 Bills Into Law In More Than A Decade



Paul Ryan can't pass a bill on his own. Maybe you think he is that
powerful? How many bills has Ron Paul, a Libertarian, every gotten
passed? Should I tell You? How many years has he been in office?


Damn, over 700 people in congress and nobody is getting bills passed. How
strange. But Ryan can be proud that with all of the economic and other problems
facing the United States he was able to rename a Post Office, not to mention
possibly single handedly saving all those bowhunters from unnecessary additional
expenses.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...816.html?icid=
main
g-grid10|htmlws-main-bb|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D191389


Your link is broke, so fix it so we can look without modification in
our browsers. Next time wrap a link with before and after.


renaming a post office and lowering the tax on Arrows for Bowhunting

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wanted ear-mark money for cowboy
poetry in Reno, NV. What is your point? Reid wanted to recess the
Senate early so he could go home and see his new pomegranate trees he
had never seen. He said it on the Senate floor, like he said the
private sector jobs were doing fine in November 2011.

He also helped have a prior Post Office in Las Vegas turned into a
Mob Museum. What is your point?

What is wrong with hunting arrows? I bet Mr. Ryan put food on his
table at a cheaper cost.

You do know that deer are bigger up North than they are down South,
right? Should I explain what a Key Deer looks like in the Florida
keys?

No, but you should explain how that has any relevance, unless Ryan only lowered
the taxes on 22 caliber arrows for the Conch Republic(ans)

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis
volutpat commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit
urna pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia
scelerisque ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed
est gravida ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi
egestas venenatis. Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta
lobortis ultricies. Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas
volutpat aliquet sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt
sed dolor. Nullam nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium
accumsan odio. Sed ut mi iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec
augue dui, in mattis urna. In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu
lorem sed odio porttitor blandit.

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


Damn, over 700 people in congress and nobody is getting bills passed.
How strange. But Ryan can be proud that with all of the economic and
other problems facing the United States he was able to rename a Post
Office, not to mention possibly single handedly saving all those
bowhunters from unnecessary additional expenses.



Here we see a stark difference between the tickets and their supporters. The
Republicans know and understand how to count; the Democrats and their
supporters are innumerate.

There are 536 members of Congress,* not "over 700."

--------
* 537 if you count the Vice President acting as president of the Senate.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:14:06 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

Damn, over 700 people in congress and nobody is getting bills passed. How
strange. But Ryan can be proud that with all of the economic and other problems
facing the United States he was able to rename a Post Office, not to mention
possibly single handedly saving all those bowhunters from unnecessary additional
expenses.

You must be using "fuzzy math". Over 700? The present administration
had complete control of two branches of government -- 2008 - 2010.
There was plenty of bills passed. Now look at the mess our country is
in.

That Post Office and bow hunters must really bother you.
--

"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" wrote in message
...
Let me be the first to give the Romney/Ryan duo the clever nickname of
Rymney.
It only remains to be seen if they can live up to this clever monicker

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...ign=newsletter

On Aug 13, 2:31*pm, "
wrote:

Congress ... has an approval rating of 15%.


That is the current Tea Party dominated congress. The pack of morons
who want to cut the deficit by giving more tax breaks to the 1%.

Davej wrote:
On Aug 13, 2:31 pm, "
wrote:

Congress ... has an approval rating of 15%.


That is the current Tea Party dominated congress. The pack of morons
who want to cut the deficit by giving more tax breaks to the 1%.

Well, they certainly can't give tax breaks to the almost 50% who don't pay
any taxes. Duh!

Me? I'm for a "per capita" tax in addition to the income tax. We've got 320
million people in this country. If everybody kicked in just $500 per year,
we would have $160 billion extra in the government coffers.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 07:49:45 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


Damn, over 700 people in congress and nobody is getting bills passed.
How strange. But Ryan can be proud that with all of the economic and
other problems facing the United States he was able to rename a Post
Office, not to mention possibly single handedly saving all those
bowhunters from unnecessary additional expenses.



Here we see a stark difference between the tickets and their supporters. The
Republicans know and understand how to count; the Democrats and their
supporters are innumerate.

There are 536 members of Congress,* not "over 700."

--------
* 537 if you count the Vice President acting as president of the Senate.

535 voting members (unless there is a tie in the Senate, then 536 - maybe).

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


Damn, over 700 people in congress and nobody is getting bills passed.
How strange. But Ryan can be proud that with all of the economic and
other problems facing the United States he was able to rename a Post
Office, not to mention possibly single handedly saving all those
bowhunters from unnecessary additional expenses.



Here we see a stark difference between the tickets and their supporters. The
Republicans know and understand how to count; the Democrats and their
supporters are innumerate.

There are 536 members of Congress,* not "over 700."

--------
* 537 if you count the Vice President acting as president of the Senate.

and 100 senators. but in this case my fuzzy math error doesn't change a thing

In article , Oren
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:14:06 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

Damn, over 700 people in congress and nobody is getting bills passed. How
strange. But Ryan can be proud that with all of the economic and other
problems
facing the United States he was able to rename a Post Office, not to mention
possibly single handedly saving all those bowhunters from unnecessary
additional
expenses.

You must be using "fuzzy math". Over 700? The present administration
had complete control of two branches of government -- 2008 - 2010.
There was plenty of bills passed. Now look at the mess our country is
in.

That Post Office and bow hunters must really bother you.
--

strange that it doesn't bother you that his biggest legislative victories were
for such mundane things. of course I guess we could credit him with organizing
the downgrading of the Fed credit rating

In article ,
" wrote:



Paul Ryan Only Passed 2 Bills Into Law In More Than A Decade

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...s_n_1769816.ht...
g-grid10|htmlws-main-bb|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D191389

renaming a post office and lowering the tax on Arrows for Bowhunting- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly the kind of guy I want in office. We already
have too many laws.

LOL. A republican who is against laws yet passes one to rename a post office.
What a great use of his legislative mandate


We should be repealing a whole
lot of the ones that are in existence already. It's the
libs that believe more laws are the solution to everything.
This despite the fact that Congress that generates
these new laws has an approval rating of 15%. If
you had an employee that had an approval rating of
15% on his current job performance, why would you
want him taking on more responsibility?

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:50:25 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Davej wrote:
On Aug 13, 2:31 pm, "
wrote:

Congress ... has an approval rating of 15%.


That is the current Tea Party dominated congress. The pack of morons
who want to cut the deficit by giving more tax breaks to the 1%.

Well, they certainly can't give tax breaks to the almost 50% who don't pay
any taxes. Duh!

No, but we can and *should* cut their "refunds".

Me? I'm for a "per capita" tax in addition to the income tax. We've got 320
million people in this country. If everybody kicked in just $500 per year,
we would have $160 billion extra in the government coffers.

Now, if everyone kicked in an *extra* $5000, we'd almost cover the deficit.
I'll throw mine in the pot if the occupiers and everyone on welfare does the
same.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:25:18 -0700 (PDT), Davej
wrote:

On Aug 13, 2:31*pm, "
wrote:

Congress ... has an approval rating of 15%.


That is the current Tea Party dominated congress. The pack of morons
who want to cut the deficit by giving more tax breaks to the 1%.

You seem to think Congress had a higher approval rating before 2010!

Prove me wrong. What is up with you "teat" party members? Not enough
pleasures given to you by the government I guess.
--

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:44:32 -0400, "
wrote:

* 537 if you count the Vice President acting as president of the Senate.

535 voting members (unless there is a tie in the Senate, then 536 - maybe).

Jessie Jackson, Jr. is on a leave of absence.
--

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:48:06 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


Damn, over 700 people in congress and nobody is getting bills passed.
How strange. But Ryan can be proud that with all of the economic and
other problems facing the United States he was able to rename a Post
Office, not to mention possibly single handedly saving all those
bowhunters from unnecessary additional expenses.



Here we see a stark difference between the tickets and their supporters. The
Republicans know and understand how to count; the Democrats and their
supporters are innumerate.

There are 536 members of Congress,* not "over 700."

--------
* 537 if you count the Vice President acting as president of the Senate.

and 100 senators. but in this case my fuzzy math error doesn't change a thing

You really are "good" at that leftist math. BTW, there are 435 congressmen
and 100 Senators. At least we know you're on the same plane as Dougie.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:49:45 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article , Oren
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:14:06 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

Damn, over 700 people in congress and nobody is getting bills passed. How
strange. But Ryan can be proud that with all of the economic and other
problems
facing the United States he was able to rename a Post Office, not to mention
possibly single handedly saving all those bowhunters from unnecessary
additional
expenses.

You must be using "fuzzy math". Over 700? The present administration
had complete control of two branches of government -- 2008 - 2010.
There was plenty of bills passed. Now look at the mess our country is
in.

That Post Office and bow hunters must really bother you.
--

strange that it doesn't bother you that his biggest legislative victories were
for such mundane things. of course I guess we could credit him with organizing
the downgrading of the Fed credit rating

First you said it was his most spectacular victories was naming a Post
Office and reducing taxes on arrows for bow hunters. Claming he passed
these bills. One man cannot pass a bill in the House as I pointed
out. Now you say he has all this other great powers related to the
credit rating. You progressive liberals are so predictable when
changing the subject.

I bet if the Post Office was named after Louis Farrakhan Muhammad, Sr.
you would not be upset.

You never gave us the name of this Post Office.
--

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:52:36 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

LOL. A republican who is against laws yet passes one to rename a post office.
What a great use of his legislative mandate

Oh, please! DO tell us how one Representative in the House passed a
Bill all by his lonesome. I can't wait for this answer.
--

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:30:35 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:48:06 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


Damn, over 700 people in congress and nobody is getting bills passed.
How strange. But Ryan can be proud that with all of the economic and
other problems facing the United States he was able to rename a Post
Office, not to mention possibly single handedly saving all those
bowhunters from unnecessary additional expenses.



Here we see a stark difference between the tickets and their supporters. The
Republicans know and understand how to count; the Democrats and their
supporters are innumerate.

There are 536 members of Congress,* not "over 700."

--------
* 537 if you count the Vice President acting as president of the Senate.

and 100 senators. but in this case my fuzzy math error doesn't change a thing

You really are "good" at that leftist math. BTW, there are 435 congressmen
and 100 Senators. At least we know you're on the same plane as Dougie.

Japanese arithmetic is hard.
--

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


Damn, over 700 people in congress and nobody is getting bills
passed. How strange. But Ryan can be proud that with all of the
economic and other problems facing the United States he was able to
rename a Post Office, not to mention possibly single handedly
saving all those bowhunters from unnecessary additional expenses.



Here we see a stark difference between the tickets and their
supporters. The Republicans know and understand how to count; the
Democrats and their supporters are innumerate.

There are 536 members of Congress,* not "over 700."

--------
* 537 if you count the Vice President acting as president of the
Senate.

and 100 senators. but in this case my fuzzy math error doesn't change
a thing

Sigh. Once again I take up the White Man's Burden.

There are not "and 100 senators." There are 436 members of the House of
Representatives and 100 members of the Senate.

The number I quoted, 536, includes 435 representatives elected by various
states, one non-voting member from D.C., and 100 senators, two from each of
the 50 states.

In article ,
" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:50:25 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Davej wrote:
On Aug 13, 2:31 pm, "
wrote:

Congress ... has an approval rating of 15%.


That is the current Tea Party dominated congress. The pack of morons
who want to cut the deficit by giving more tax breaks to the 1%.

Well, they certainly can't give tax breaks to the almost 50% who don't pay
any taxes. Duh!

No, but we can and *should* cut their "refunds".

Me? I'm for a "per capita" tax in addition to the income tax. We've got 320
million people in this country. If everybody kicked in just $500 per year,
we would have $160 billion extra in the government coffers.

Now, if everyone kicked in an *extra* $5000, we'd almost cover the deficit.
I'll throw mine in the pot if the occupiers and everyone on welfare does the
same.

aw but the beauty of this position is that rymney wouldn't

In article , Oren
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:52:36 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

LOL. A republican who is against laws yet passes one to rename a post
office.
What a great use of his legislative mandate

Oh, please! DO tell us how one Representative in the House passed a
Bill all by his lonesome. I can't wait for this answer.
--

Ah, so no congressperson can do anything, right?

But I'll help you on this. He introduced the two bills and got his friends to
vote for it. So not only is ryan ineffective, he either didn't introduce any
bills or the bills he introduced were so pitiful that not enough interest could
be garnered to pass them

In article , Oren
wrote:


Damn, over 700 people in congress and nobody is getting bills passed. How
strange. But Ryan can be proud that with all of the economic and other
problems facing the United States he was able to rename a Post Office,
not to mention possibly single handedly saving all those bowhunters from
unnecessary additional expenses.

You must be using "fuzzy math". Over 700? The present administration had
complete control of two branches of government -- 2008 - 2010. There was
plenty of bills passed. Now look at the mess our country is in.

That Post Office and bow hunters must really bother you. --

strange that it doesn't bother you that his biggest legislative victories
were for such mundane things. of course I guess we could credit him with
organizing the downgrading of the Fed credit rating

First you said it was his most spectacular victories was naming a Post Office
and reducing taxes on arrows for bow hunters. Claming he passed these bills.
One man cannot pass a bill in the House as I pointed out. Now you say he has
all this other great powers related to the credit rating. You progressive
liberals are so predictable when changing the subject.

So you deny that Ryan was among the leaders of the republicans to not allow
raising the debt ceiling and that this failure resulted in the credit rating of
the US to be downgraded?




I bet if the Post Office was named after Louis Farrakhan Muhammad, Sr. you
would not be upset.

I actually don't care who it's named after, but you knew that. The crime is that
with such a ****ed up congress, he manages to get something so menial passed
instead of working on real problems. At least lowering the tax on Arrows was
something in line with his political philosophy, but then again, he is a bow
hunter


You never gave us the name of this Post Office. --

the post office on 1818 Milton Ave. in Janesville, Wis., is now known as "Les
Aspin Post Office Building."

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Damn, over 700 people in congress and nobody is getting bills
passed. How strange. But Ryan can be proud that with all of the
economic and other problems facing the United States he was able to
rename a Post Office, not to mention possibly single handedly
saving all those bowhunters from unnecessary additional expenses.

Here we see a stark difference between the tickets and their
supporters. The Republicans know and understand how to count; the
Democrats and their supporters are innumerate.

There are 536 members of Congress,* not "over 700."

--------
* 537 if you count the Vice President acting as president of the
Senate.

and 100 senators. but in this case my fuzzy math error doesn't change
a thing

Sigh. Once again I take up the White Man's Burden.

how very white of you

There are not "and 100 senators." There are 436 members of the House of
Representatives and 100 members of the Senate.

The number I quoted, 536, includes 435 representatives elected by various
states, one non-voting member from D.C., and 100 senators, two from each of
the 50 states.

great. you've ryaned me with useless numbers that in no way change the point I
was trying to make

In article ,
" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:48:06 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


Damn, over 700 people in congress and nobody is getting bills passed.
How strange. But Ryan can be proud that with all of the economic and
other problems facing the United States he was able to rename a Post
Office, not to mention possibly single handedly saving all those
bowhunters from unnecessary additional expenses.



Here we see a stark difference between the tickets and their supporters.
The
Republicans know and understand how to count; the Democrats and their
supporters are innumerate.

There are 536 members of Congress,* not "over 700."

--------
* 537 if you count the Vice President acting as president of the Senate.

and 100 senators. but in this case my fuzzy math error doesn't change a
thing

You really are "good" at that leftist math. BTW, there are 435 congressmen
and 100 Senators. At least we know you're on the same plane as Dougie.

and that somehow changes the point I was trying to make?

On 8/12/2012 5:12 PM, Roy wrote:
On Sunday, August 12, 2012 1:12:44 PM UTC-6, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
Let me be the first to give the Romney/Ryan duo the clever nickname of Rymney.

It only remains to be seen if they can live up to this clever monicker

IMHO they're both twits. Ryan is a simple Simon from hicksville and Romney
is a pompous ass. They are for the rich and **** on the poor...they can suck
lemons.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/mitt-romney-would-pay-082-percent-in-taxes-under-paul-ryans-plan/261027/

http://preview.tinyurl.com/8mvfqpa

Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan
By Matthew O'Brien


Under Paul Ryan's plan, Mitt Romney wouldn't pay any taxes for the next
ten years -- or any of the years after that. Now, do I know that that's
true. Yes, I'm certain.

Well, maybe not quite nothing. In 2010 -- the only year we have seen a
full return from him -- Romney would have paid an effective tax rate of
around 0.82 percent under the Ryan plan, rather than the 13.9 percent he
actually did. How would someone with more than $21 million in taxable
income pay so little? Well, the vast majority of Romney's income came
from capital gains, interest, and dividends. And Ryan wants to eliminate
all taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends.

Romney, of course, criticized this idea when Newt Gingrich proposed it
back in January by pointing out that zeroing out taxes on savings and
investment would mean zeroing out his own taxes.

As Jared Bernstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has
pointed out, Romney has structured his investments as "pass-throughs"
that avoid corporate tax. In other words, the 0.82 percent tax rate is
really a 0.82 percent tax rate.

It might seem impossible to fund the government when the super-rich pay
no taxes. That is accurate. Ryan would actually raise taxes on the
bottom 30 percent of earners, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy
Center, but that hardly fills the revenue hole he would create. The
solution? All but eliminate all government outside of Social Security
and defense -- a point my colleague Derek Thompson has made in
incredible chart form.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-worst-part-of-paul-ryans-budget/254845/

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6pzc4ct

In order to pretend that the U.S. government can wear its 1950s-era
girdle, you have no choice but to either dismantle government-paid
health care, or else cut the rest of government with such draconian
verve that we're forced to let our highways rot, while the unemployed go
bankrupt and our veterans go homeless. Voters don't want that.
Republicans don't want that. I don't think Paul Ryan wants that. But
that's the future that he has written. Deficit reduction isn't easy.
When you insist on doing it without raising tax revenue, it gets much
harder.


--
Sherlock

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


and 100 senators. but in this case my fuzzy math error doesn't
change a thing

Sigh. Once again I take up the White Man's Burden.

how very white of you

There are not "and 100 senators." There are 436 members of the House
of Representatives and 100 members of the Senate.

The number I quoted, 536, includes 435 representatives elected by
various states, one non-voting member from D.C., and 100 senators,
two from each of the 50 states.

great. you've ryaned me with useless numbers that in no way change
the point I was trying to make

Oh, but the numbers I mentioned are more germane than you wish.

"Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," False in one, false in all.

Suppose you were trying to make the point that Paul Ryan does not possess
traditional American values. Suppose further that in trying to make that
claim, you mention he's really an alien from another planet and has "Soup is
Good Food" tattooed on his forehead.

Who would take you seriously?

Lesson is, even when mentioning points not essential to your argument, it is
prudent to be as accurate as possible.

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:



So you deny that Ryan was among the leaders of the republicans to not allow
raising the debt ceiling and that this failure resulted in the credit rating
of
the US to be downgraded?


Nope, but I also put that (as did S&P BTW) on the Dems, too. It was
pretty much the intransigence on the part of BOTH parties that lead S&P
to issue their downgrade (which hasn't been followed by the others and
has had no apparent effect in real life.
"The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation
plan that Congress and ****the administration*** recently agreed to
falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the
government's medium-term debt dynamics," it said. (Emphasis mine).
It described the decision as a judgment about the nation's leaders,
writing that "the gulf between the political parties" had reduced its
confidence in the government's ability to manage its finances.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 02:51:16 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:48:06 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


Damn, over 700 people in congress and nobody is getting bills passed.
How strange. But Ryan can be proud that with all of the economic and
other problems facing the United States he was able to rename a Post
Office, not to mention possibly single handedly saving all those
bowhunters from unnecessary additional expenses.



Here we see a stark difference between the tickets and their supporters.
The
Republicans know and understand how to count; the Democrats and their
supporters are innumerate.

There are 536 members of Congress,* not "over 700."

--------
* 537 if you count the Vice President acting as president of the Senate.

and 100 senators. but in this case my fuzzy math error doesn't change a
thing

You really are "good" at that leftist math. BTW, there are 435 congressmen
and 100 Senators. At least we know you're on the same plane as Dougie.

and that somehow changes the point I was trying to make?

It shows that you're stupid as a stump and that everything you say can be
chalked up to more mumblings of an moron.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 02:37:26 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:50:25 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Davej wrote:
On Aug 13, 2:31 pm, "
wrote:

Congress ... has an approval rating of 15%.


That is the current Tea Party dominated congress. The pack of morons
who want to cut the deficit by giving more tax breaks to the 1%.

Well, they certainly can't give tax breaks to the almost 50% who don't pay
any taxes. Duh!

No, but we can and *should* cut their "refunds".

Me? I'm for a "per capita" tax in addition to the income tax. We've got 320
million people in this country. If everybody kicked in just $500 per year,
we would have $160 billion extra in the government coffers.

Now, if everyone kicked in an *extra* $5000, we'd almost cover the deficit.
I'll throw mine in the pot if the occupiers and everyone on welfare does the
same.

aw but the beauty of this position is that rymney wouldn't

One again, you show what a real idiot you are.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 05:42:14 -0400, "Sherlock.Homes"
wrote:


A CNN poll this week found 63 percent believe Romney should release more
tax returns.

What's a CNN? I bet most people (myself included) would not even
understand his tax returns. Ask Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the
Treasury.

Romney has provided what is needed by the election commission. Sure
he can give more, but what is your point?
--

Oren wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:25:18 -0700 (PDT), Davej
wrote:

On Aug 13, 2:31*pm, "
wrote:

Congress ... has an approval rating of 15%.


That is the current Tea Party dominated congress. The pack of morons
who want to cut the deficit by giving more tax breaks to the 1%.

You seem to think Congress had a higher approval rating before 2010!

Just on time- Gallup asks again. Congress would love to have their
15% rating they enjoyed a couple months ago. They just tied their
all time low 10%. First set in Feb 2012.

They did get as low as 14 in '08-- But 20% was only reached twice
before '79 & '92.

I'm pretty sure they suck worse now than they ever have. [And I don't
blame the tea party for all of it-- the way-left sucks just as bad--
there's too many on both sides who put party before country]

Jim

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:35:50 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

Oren wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:25:18 -0700 (PDT), Davej
wrote:

On Aug 13, 2:31*pm, "
wrote:

Congress ... has an approval rating of 15%.


That is the current Tea Party dominated congress. The pack of morons
who want to cut the deficit by giving more tax breaks to the 1%.

You seem to think Congress had a higher approval rating before 2010!

Just on time- Gallup asks again.

oops- forgot the link-
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156662/Co...Time-Low.aspx?
Congress would love to have their
15% rating they enjoyed a couple months ago. They just tied their
all time low 10%. First set in Feb 2012.

They did get as low as 14 in '08-- But 20% was only reached twice
before '79 & '92.

I'm pretty sure they suck worse now than they ever have. [And I don't
blame the tea party for all of it-- the way-left sucks just as bad--
there's too many on both sides who put party before country]

Jim

In article ,
" wrote:


and that somehow changes the point I was trying to make?

It shows that you're stupid as a stump and that everything you say can be
chalked up to more mumblings of an moron.

I see. You can't win an discussion on point so you resort to name calling

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


and 100 senators. but in this case my fuzzy math error doesn't
change a thing

Sigh. Once again I take up the White Man's Burden.

how very white of you

There are not "and 100 senators." There are 436 members of the House
of Representatives and 100 members of the Senate.

The number I quoted, 536, includes 435 representatives elected by
various states, one non-voting member from D.C., and 100 senators,
two from each of the 50 states.

great. you've ryaned me with useless numbers that in no way change
the point I was trying to make

Oh, but the numbers I mentioned are more germane than you wish.

"Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," False in one, false in all.

Suppose you were trying to make the point that Paul Ryan does not possess
traditional American values. Suppose further that in trying to make that
claim, you mention he's really an alien from another planet and has "Soup is
Good Food" tattooed on his forehead.

Who would take you seriously?

Lesson is, even when mentioning points not essential to your argument, it is
prudent to be as accurate as possible.

I agree, accuracy is highly desirable, but it doesn't matter a wit that I got
the number of congresspeople wrong. in fact, since my number was high, my point
becomes even more relevant. A small group of legislators and they can't pass laws