Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread V

McGentrix wrote:

blatham wrote:
True. But of course George Bush was all 666 of the 666.

That was pretty weak.

By most standards, but not to those of his target audience.

0 Replies

It is often the case here that when a Member of Parliament has a specific reason for voting against the Government in his constituency the Whips will allow him/her to do so without penalty if they are confident the resolution will pass easily anyway. Deals are done behind the scenes.

This means that the size of the vote against a resolution is sometimes artificially inflated. Whether such things happen in votes in the Senate and Congress I don't know.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

It is often the case here that when a Member of Parliament has a specific reason for voting against the Government in his constituency the Whips will allow him/her to do so without penalty if they are confident the resolution will pass easily anyway. Deals are done behind the scenes.

This means that the size of the vote against a resolution is sometimes artificially inflated. Whether such things happen in votes in the Senate and Congress I don't know.

Naturally, it does, though there aren't too many penalties for voting against the leadership now that DeLay is out of the house...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Tico wrote-

Quote:

By most standards, but not to those of his target audience.

I have noticed a remarkable tendency of liberal lefties to underestimate their audience. I think they are using themselves as a benchmark so I suppose it is inevitable.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

spendius wrote:
It is often the case here that when a Member of Parliament has a specific reason for voting against the Government in his constituency the Whips will allow him/her to do so without penalty if they are confident the resolution will pass easily anyway. Deals are done behind the scenes.

This means that the size of the vote against a resolution is sometimes artificially inflated. Whether such things happen in votes in the Senate and Congress I don't know.

Naturally, it does, though there aren't too many penalties for voting against the leadership now that DeLay is out of the house...

Cycloptichorn

So, are you saying that there were no penalites for voting against the leadership when Tip O'neill was speaker?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
spendius wrote:
It is often the case here that when a Member of Parliament has a specific reason for voting against the Government in his constituency the Whips will allow him/her to do so without penalty if they are confident the resolution will pass easily anyway. Deals are done behind the scenes.

This means that the size of the vote against a resolution is sometimes artificially inflated. Whether such things happen in votes in the Senate and Congress I don't know.

Naturally, it does, though there aren't too many penalties for voting against the leadership now that DeLay is out of the house...

Cycloptichorn

So, are you saying that there were no penalites for voting against the leadership when Tip O'neill was speaker?

So, are you saying there was no social injustice in Italy prior to the Mussolini period?

Both your rhetorical question and mine are worse than meaningless...they obfuscate precisely the important differences that deserve to be addressed.

You have two intellectually honest options in responding to a claim like cyclo's.... either do some careful research to find differences, or point out that such research is the key to illumination of differences but that you either don't have the time or the interest to go to that level of work.

0 Replies

A wonderfully clear graph on the current market values for party control of presidency...
http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/control-of-presidency/

0 Replies

What does it mean Bernie? Is it a form of spread betting?

0 Replies

Not sure how it works, spendi. If you dig around the site, I imagine the guts of the thing will be explained or apparent.

0 Replies

Phuck citizens. Phuck an improved vaccine for anthrax. What's really important is money and friends...

Quote:

New anthrax vaccine doomed by lobbying

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-anthrax2dec02,0,4913303.story?coll=la-home-center

0 Replies

spendi, What it means is what most people already know; that the economy under the democrats helps everyone, while the republicans help business and the rich.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

spendi, What it means is what most people already know; that the economy under the democrats helps everyone, while the republicans help business and the rich.

Double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and the "misery index" really were good for everyone, werent they.

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

spendi, What it means is what most people already know; that the economy under the democrats helps everyone, while the republicans help business and the rich.

As that is a disputable assertion how on earth can mathematical principles be applied to it.

Your statement c.i. is a clear demonstration of your lack of scientific knowledge.

At the 2004 election-

Quote:

The 62 million votes cast for Bush were the most individual votes cast for anyone in history, though John Kerry's 59 million votes ranked second in that category as well.

How can 62 million voters be business people and the rich? Why would that number vote to not "help everyone".

Your statement is proven rubbish and any use of mathematical models to prove it makes sense is thus a perversion of science.

To what extent did the 8 years of the Democrats "help everyone"?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Phuck citizens. Phuck an improved vaccine for anthrax. What's really important is money and friends...

Why don't you start a new thread where you can "phuck" anything you want, Bernie?

0 Replies

No scientific knowledge is necessary. There are plenty of resources to back up my claim.

Here's one.

May 9, 2005
REPUBLICANS vs. DEMOCRATS ON THE ECONOMY....Did you know that Democratic presidents are better for the economy than Republicans? Sure you did. I pointed this out two years ago, back when my readership numbered in the dozens, and more recently Michael Kinsley ran the numbers in the LA Times and came to the same conclusion.

The results are simple: Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.

All you need to do is show "evidence" that this claim is wrong.

0 Replies

From Wikipedia-

Quote:

The current form of the law is not that which Parkinson refers to by that name in the article. Rather, he assigns to the term a mathematical equation describing the rate at which bureaucracies expand over time. Much of the essay is dedicated to a summary of purportedly scientific observations supporting his law, such as the increase in the number of employees at the Colonial Office while Britain's overseas empire declined. He explains this growth by two forces: (1) "An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals" and (2) "Officials make work for each other." He notes in particular that the total of those employed inside a bureaucracy rose by 5-7% per year "irrespective of any variation in the amount of work (if any) to be done."

So Dems are more given to bureaucratic expansion.

How do you define "employment"?

0 Replies

spendi, You haven't been paying attention; Bush has expanded government to its largest number and cost.

0 Replies

Perhaps he's a Democrat eh? Our "Labour Party" has left the working man gasping for breath, locked up more of them, has stopped them smoking in pubs, fined them every time they slam the door and plenty more.

I think that the left is the women's party and the right the men's.

It was a Republican who warned about the military industrial complex. Mr Eisenhower.

And who is to say that Mr Bush could avoid expanding the government under the circumstances he was in or that the Dems wouldn't expand it even more. You made a false comparison. The two driving forces Parkinson points to are more Dem territory than Rep territory I think.

Do you think the Dems would expand it more?

And don't think that the people who don't read your paper are necessarily not paying attention. I see America through a different lens than you do.
My Gurus taught me to look at these things through their eyes. I didn't look at them through mine.

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread V

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know