The shutdown is tiny?

[ScienceRocks]

why won't these vets ask the republicans to open up the government?

Seems simple!

 

[The Rabbi]

why won't these vets ask the republicans to open up the government?

Seems simple!

The GOP did not shut down the parks. Obama did. That's why they are returning the barrycades back to the White House and not COngress.
Maybe they should lobby for increased spending on infrastructure, science and technology?

 

[Hoffstra]

The GOP did not shut down the parks. Obama did. That's why they are returning the barrycades back to the White House and not COngress.
Maybe they should lobby for increased spending on infrastructure, science and technology?

if the National Parks Service isn't funded, all National Parks Service sites must be shutdown.

its called reality.

 

[Billy000]

You can't express yourself and it's my fault?

Define "large". You can't.

It's your fault if you can't understand what I am implying. Coming from a retard who thinks homosexuality is a disease, I can't say I am worried about what you think of the way I worded something.

You want me to define large? How idiotic are you? A half a million people is large.

I didnt realize you were a retard who thought homosexuality was a disease. Who knew?
A half a million people is not large int he context of 5 billion on Earth. You fail.

What are you 13? Is that your idea of a comeback? Of course, what should I expect? I am dealing with a retard.

Let me get this straight. I can't define "large", yet you can define "not large"? Not only that, but your retarded definition of "not large" is based on the context of the random number "5 billion". Are you aware that there is a LARGER number than 5 billion?

Thanks that made my day.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The GOP did not shut down the parks. Obama did. That's why they are returning the barrycades back to the White House and not COngress.
Maybe they should lobby for increased spending on infrastructure, science and technology?

if the National Parks Service isn't funded, all National Parks Service sites must be shutdown.

its called reality.

New York city is paying through local and state funds to reopen the statue of liberty.

 

[Katzndogz]

This is the kind of defeat the republicans are facing in 2014 for the house

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_election,_1874

This is what the nation is facing if democrats continue their borrowing and spending.

The debt reparations piled onto Germany, which in 1913 was the world’s third-biggest economy, sparked the hyperinflation, borrowings and political deadlock that brought the Nazis to power, and the default. It shows how excessive debt has capricious results, such as the civil war and despotism that ravaged Florence after England’s Edward III refused to pay his obligations from the city-state’s banks in 1339, and the Revolution of 1789 that followed the French Crown’s defaults in 1770 and 1788.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...germany-in-pantheon-of-deadbeat-defaults.html

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

There's nothing tiny about what these anti-science, anti-tech and anti-America being a first world country are doing.

Here's a thought. How about you get off your ass and go do some fucking science or technological advances instead of waiting for the government spoon feed you.

Without government you can't fucking function?

Matthew is referring to the evangelical influence on the Republican party in case you haven't noticed. You know, the same bunch that wants to teach our children that the world is only 10,000 years old.


Showdown Over Science in Texas
Creationists corrupted state education standards and may push evolution out of textbooks.

Texas science textbooks: Creationists try to remove evolution from classrooms.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

The GOP did not shut down the parks. Obama did. That's why they are returning the barrycades back to the White House and not COngress.
Maybe they should lobby for increased spending on infrastructure, science and technology?

if the National Parks Service isn't funded, all National Parks Service sites must be shutdown.

its called reality.

New York city is paying through local and state funds to reopen the statue of liberty.

That's great to hear. I hope most of the money is coming from the Wall Street thugs. It's the least they can do.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

LOL! You didnt actually write that, did you?
Do you consider 18% of anything to be a big portion of the whole?

Clearly I meant 18% of the federal government is large amount of people given the size of the federal government. If you're too stupid to understand that, I don't know what else to tell you.

Uhm, if less than 20% of something is so huge... than apparently that something is way too big.

If you're too stupid to understand that, I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[depotoo]

Clearly you have no perspective of how big our federal government is. Just because it is 18%, it doesn't mean it is a small portion.

LOL! You didnt actually write that, did you?
Do you consider 18% of anything to be a big portion of the whole?

Clearly I meant 18% of the federal government is large amount of people given the size of the federal government. If you're too stupid to understand that, I don't know what else to tell you.

i believe you should have used the word proportion - not portion, if that is what you meant. But, even then 18% is a relatively small proportion of the entire fed government, dear. You can't state just because it is so large that 18% is therefore big. It doesn't work that way. !8% is not even a fifth of the whole.

 

[Billy000]

LOL! You didnt actually write that, did you?
Do you consider 18% of anything to be a big portion of the whole?

Clearly I meant 18% of the federal government is large amount of people given the size of the federal government. If you're too stupid to understand that, I don't know what else to tell you.

Uhm, if less than 20% of something is so huge... than apparently that something is way too big.

If you're too stupid to understand that, I don't know what else to tell you.

So youre saying that numbers can only be big in the context of percentages? Who and when came to a consensus on that? So does that mean that 18% of the stars in the universe is a small number?

 

[The Rabbi]

The GOP did not shut down the parks. Obama did. That's why they are returning the barrycades back to the White House and not COngress.
Maybe they should lobby for increased spending on infrastructure, science and technology?

if the National Parks Service isn't funded, all National Parks Service sites must be shutdown.

its called reality.

Open air sites that don't require any personnel must be shut down? Is that why they were shut down during Clinton's term? Oops.
It's called politics. This particularly nasty strain is the product of Obama's desire to punish people.

 

[Billy000]

LOL! You didnt actually write that, did you?
Do you consider 18% of anything to be a big portion of the whole?

Clearly I meant 18% of the federal government is large amount of people given the size of the federal government. If you're too stupid to understand that, I don't know what else to tell you.

i believe you should have used the word proportion - not portion, if that is what you meant. But, even then 18% is a relatively small proportion of the entire fed government, dear. You can't state just because it is so large that 18% is therefore big. It doesn't work that way. !8% is not even a fifth of the whole.

Again, since when does the context of a percentage alone define a number as large?

 

[The Rabbi]

It's your fault if you can't understand what I am implying. Coming from a retard who thinks homosexuality is a disease, I can't say I am worried about what you think of the way I worded something.

You want me to define large? How idiotic are you? A half a million people is large.

I didnt realize you were a retard who thought homosexuality was a disease. Who knew?
A half a million people is not large int he context of 5 billion on Earth. You fail.

What are you 13? Is that your idea of a comeback? Of course, what should I expect? I am dealing with a retard.

Let me get this straight. I can't define "large", yet you can define "not large"? Not only that, but your retarded definition of "not large" is based on the context of the random number "5 billion". Are you aware that there is a LARGER number than 5 billion?

Thanks that made my day.

You're too stupid to understand what you wrote, much less what I wrote. Your post referred to you as a retard who thought homosexuality was a disease. Ididnt make that up. I just read what you wrote.

I'm not defining large or small. You're the one offering these terms. They are meaningless without context, as I point out. You can't figure that out. 18% of anything is not a major part of it. Period.

 

[The Rabbi]

Clearly I meant 18% of the federal government is large amount of people given the size of the federal government. If you're too stupid to understand that, I don't know what else to tell you.

i believe you should have used the word proportion - not portion, if that is what you meant. But, even then 18% is a relatively small proportion of the entire fed government, dear. You can't state just because it is so large that 18% is therefore big. It doesn't work that way. !8% is not even a fifth of the whole.

Again, since when does the context of a percentage alone define a number as large?

OK, so what context does define it as large?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Clearly I meant 18% of the federal government is large amount of people given the size of the federal government. If you're too stupid to understand that, I don't know what else to tell you.

Uhm, if less than 20% of something is so huge... than apparently that something is way too big.

If you're too stupid to understand that, I don't know what else to tell you.

So youre saying that numbers can only be big in the context of percentages? Who and when came to a consensus on that? So does that mean that 18% of the stars in the universe is a small number?

Looka, all we are saying is that if the government is so huge that a less than 20% shutdown id catastrophic, then that government s way too big.

 

[Spiderman]

All those people furloughed and most of us haven't even noticed it in our daily lives.

Seems we don't need them as much as they say we do.

 

[depotoo]

Clearly I meant 18% of the federal government is large amount of people given the size of the federal government. If you're too stupid to understand that, I don't know what else to tell you.

Uhm, if less than 20% of something is so huge... than apparently that something is way too big.

If you're too stupid to understand that, I don't know what else to tell you.

So youre saying that numbers can only be big in the context of percentages? Who and when came to a consensus on that? So does that mean that 18% of the stars in the universe is a small number?

Relative to the whole, yes.

 

[Billy000]

I didnt realize you were a retard who thought homosexuality was a disease. Who knew?
A half a million people is not large int he context of 5 billion on Earth. You fail.

What are you 13? Is that your idea of a comeback? Of course, what should I expect? I am dealing with a retard.

Let me get this straight. I can't define "large", yet you can define "not large"? Not only that, but your retarded definition of "not large" is based on the context of the random number "5 billion". Are you aware that there is a LARGER number than 5 billion?

Thanks that made my day.

You're too stupid to understand what you wrote, much less what I wrote. Your post referred to you as a retard who thought homosexuality was a disease. Ididnt make that up. I just read what you wrote.

I'm not defining large or small. You're the one offering these terms. They are meaningless without context, as I point out. You can't figure that out. 18% of anything is not a major part of it. Period.

If I was referring to myself, which wouldn't make any sense anyway, why did i use the word "you" in that sentence? Obviously "you" is not "I"

You defined not large you dumb shit. That was a term you offered. Why is it acceptable to define not large but not large or small? See, you defined not large within the context of 5 billion and offered no other alternative for the definition. This is something idiots do.

Major of anything? Are you even listening to yourself?

 

[Billy000]

Uhm, if less than 20% of something is so huge... than apparently that something is way too big.

If you're too stupid to understand that, I don't know what else to tell you.

So youre saying that numbers can only be big in the context of percentages? Who and when came to a consensus on that? So does that mean that 18% of the stars in the universe is a small number?

Looka, all we are saying is that if the government is so huge that a less than 20% shutdown id catastrophic, then that government s way too big.

But that isn't what you said before. You implied anything 20% of any amount is a small number.