F1fth wrote:You're twisting that statistic to mean something that it does not mean.
The link says: "90 percent of those who called and sent e-mail messages opposed the bailout."
You are inferring: "90 percent of all Americans opposed the bailout.
Either way! the message that Congress got was, do not do this thing. The terms of the bail out were total bullshit. No oversight, no accountability for the money, no questions asked, and no garuntee that it was even going to be used for what they said it was going to be used for, in fact, a clear statement that they could and likely would change their minds on what to use the money for? You are making me laugh if you propose that this was good legislation. Politicians that voted for this are on the same drugs that the majority of you are, it seems.
So you admit that your previous statement about 90% of the people backing it was bullshit?
Because noone is arguing that the bailout was good or not, but it was in fact democratic. That's the entire thing with democracy, shit happens simply because people are wrong. It's pretty obvious that a majority of both the people and the people who were elected to respresent people thought it was a good idea, whether or not you think it wasn't is frankly unimportant.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
F1fth wrote:You're twisting that statistic to mean something that it does not mean.
The link says: "90 percent of those who called and sent e-mail messages opposed the bailout."
You are inferring: "90 percent of all Americans opposed the bailout.
Either way! the message that Congress got was, do not do this thing. The terms of the bail out were total bullshit. No oversight, no accountability for the money, no questions asked, and no garuntee that it was even going to be used for what they said it was going to be used for, in fact, a clear statement that they could and likely would change their minds on what to use the money for? You are making me laugh if you propose that this was good legislation. Politicians that voted for this are on the same drugs that the majority of you are, it seems.
So you admit that your previous statement about 90% of the people backing it was bullshit?
Because noone is arguing that the bailout was good or not, but it was in fact democratic. That's the entire thing with democracy, shit happens simply because people are wrong. It's pretty obvious that a majority of both the people and the people who were elected to respresent people thought it was a good idea, whether or not you think it wasn't is frankly unimportant.
Sure... it was democratic, every bit as democratic as the vote to attack Iraq. point is, the people were vastly saying to their congressional reps, Don't do it. They didn't listen. They were not representing the will of the people.
F1fth wrote:You're twisting that statistic to mean something that it does not mean.
The link says: "90 percent of those who called and sent e-mail messages opposed the bailout."
You are inferring: "90 percent of all Americans opposed the bailout.
Either way! the message that Congress got was, do not do this thing. The terms of the bail out were total bullshit. No oversight, no accountability for the money, no questions asked, and no garuntee that it was even going to be used for what they said it was going to be used for, in fact, a clear statement that they could and likely would change their minds on what to use the money for? You are making me laugh if you propose that this was good legislation. Politicians that voted for this are on the same drugs that the majority of you are, it seems.
So you admit that your previous statement about 90% of the people backing it was bullshit?
Because noone is arguing that the bailout was good or not, but it was in fact democratic. That's the entire thing with democracy, shit happens simply because people are wrong. It's pretty obvious that a majority of both the people and the people who were elected to respresent people thought it was a good idea, whether or not you think it wasn't is frankly unimportant.
Sure... it was democratic, every bit as democratic as the vote to attack Iraq. point is, the people were vastly saying to their congressional reps, Don't do it. They didn't listen. They were not representing the will of the people.
They were not representing the will of a bunch of people who called up their representers, that doesn't mean they didn't represent the will of the actual people. We don't tend to phone up or write politicians telling them how right they are, so it's perfectly understandable.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
F1fth wrote:You're twisting that statistic to mean something that it does not mean.
The link says: "90 percent of those who called and sent e-mail messages opposed the bailout."
You are inferring: "90 percent of all Americans opposed the bailout.
Either way! the message that Congress got was, do not do this thing. The terms of the bail out were total bullshit. No oversight, no accountability for the money, no questions asked, and no garuntee that it was even going to be used for what they said it was going to be used for, in fact, a clear statement that they could and likely would change their minds on what to use the money for? You are making me laugh if you propose that this was good legislation. Politicians that voted for this are on the same drugs that the majority of you are, it seems.
So you admit that your previous statement about 90% of the people backing it was bullshit?
Because noone is arguing that the bailout was good or not, but it was in fact democratic. That's the entire thing with democracy, shit happens simply because people are wrong. It's pretty obvious that a majority of both the people and the people who were elected to respresent people thought it was a good idea, whether or not you think it wasn't is frankly unimportant.
Sure... it was democratic, every bit as democratic as the vote to attack Iraq. point is, the people were vastly saying to their congressional reps, Don't do it. They didn't listen. They were not representing the will of the people.
They were not representing the will of a bunch of people who called up their representers, that doesn't mean they didn't represent the will of the actual people. We don't tend to phone up or write politicians telling them how right they are, so it's perfectly understandable.
I disagree. If you get an overwhelming message from people telling you "don't do it!" then its in the best interest of your constituents to find out what your constituents want. none of that happened.
captain.crazy wrote:I disagree. If you get an overwhelming message from people telling you "don't do it!" then its in the best interest of your constituents to find out what your constituents want. none of that happened.
You can't say it's an "overwhelming" message just by looking at percents. What if 9 people protested and 1 person said good job? Is that overwhelming?
A statistic like that is almost meaningless. I would imagine roughly 90% of the calls about any controversial decision are negative. Why would people take action if things are going their way?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
captain.crazy wrote:I disagree. If you get an overwhelming message from people telling you "don't do it!" then its in the best interest of your constituents to find out what your constituents want. none of that happened.
You can't say it's an "overwhelming" message just by looking at percents. What if 9 people protested and 1 person said good job? Is that overwhelming?
A statistic like that is almost meaningless. I would imagine roughly 90% of the calls about any controversial decision are negative. Why would people take action if things are going their way?
I am sure that if the volume of those calling and emailing in were so low, it would not have made the news. My understanding is that the switchboards were hot and email servers were as well.
F1fth wrote:You're twisting that statistic to mean something that it does not mean.
The link says: "90 percent of those who called and sent e-mail messages opposed the bailout."
You are inferring: "90 percent of all Americans opposed the bailout.
Either way! the message that Congress got was, do not do this thing.
The difference is pretty major. If 10 people call in and 9 say "nay"... it will be 90%. While I am sure far more than 10 people called in, it was nothing even close to a majority of voters in any constituency. For one thing, the switchboards could never handle it. Also, only those opposed were cued in an told to call and say nay during the 'tea party".
As for whether the bailout was good or not. I don't think anyone really likes the bailout, but they dislike it just a bit less than the truly terrible alternative if nothing is done.
F1fth wrote:You're twisting that statistic to mean something that it does not mean.
The link says: "90 percent of those who called and sent e-mail messages opposed the bailout."
You are inferring: "90 percent of all Americans opposed the bailout.
Either way! the message that Congress got was, do not do this thing.
The difference is pretty major. If 10 people call in and 9 say "nay"... it will be 90%. While I am sure far more than 10 people called in, it was nothing even close to a majority of voters in any constituency. For one thing, the switchboards could never handle it. Also, only those opposed were cued in an told to call and say nay during the 'tea party".
As for whether the bailout was good or not. I don't think anyone really likes the bailout, but they dislike it just a bit less than the truly terrible alternative if nothing is done.
I don't think so. I think that more people than you realize are sick of Keynesian economics. Austrian economics is where it's at.
