My last cite says the 113th Congress enacted 296 laws. Unless they did 223 of those 296 in 2014, then that cite too, is using a different methodology. Funny, I thought we were discussing this in good faith rather than playing SDMB gotcha.
Good faith discussion means acknowledging when the thing you cited in no way supports the proposition for which you cited it. When you do that, everyone moves on. When you don’t, people point and laugh. It’s our way.
I’m with you. I think 296 is the best way to measure the 113th congress. 223 may or may not have been done in the calendar year 2014.
I believe that you actually read something at some point that pointed to 1000s of pieces of legislation in the 113th congress as well. The thing is, your cite didn’t show that. Your cite is from 2012. It’s not simply discussing the wrong year, it was WRITTEN in the wrong year. You see that right?
Like I said, you put up a bad cite. Like, really really bad. No harm no foul since I would think most would see that as a simple error since an article with the exact same tone could have been written about the 2014 year and still be reasonably accurate. But not even acknowledging it and chalking it up to “different methodologies” is bad form. At least a mention that you erred in choosing the wrong cite. It happens - and it shows good faith.
I never claimed my cite backed up my original estimate. I provided the cite expressly to demonstrate that different sites had different figures. I then provided a second cite that was updated to 2014 since that was your complaint, which also had different figures, and more detail.
I think you’re confusion is that you thought my cite was supposed to back up my original estimate when that was never my intent. Demonstrating different methodologies was the whole point of the cite.
Point and laugh at things they don’t understand. Reading comprehension should be a prerequisite for posting here. Some Dopers have a bad habit of responding to arguments not made and then declaring themselves victorious.
Yes - you certainly left the impression that your cite was supposed to back up your original estimate. It’s unfortunate you couldn’t elaborate in post 14, 16, 18, or 21 to clear up the confusion since the time reference was what was clearly being objected to - not any measurement methodology as it were. No problem though, it’s not a substantive issue so no harm no foul.
Public Law 113-73 was the first bill signed into law in January 2014. Public Law 113-296 was the last bill signed into law in December 2014. You can look them up at https://www.congress.gov and click on “public laws.”
I’m still wondering how you get to 1,000 laws being enacted “last year” because of “different ways of counting things.” Why not just admit that you had no idea what you were talking about, but decided to talk anyways?
You’re basically saying everything is perfect just the way it is, no more laws need to be made, no more progress needs to be had, America as attained perfection. Whatever point you THINK you’re making with that statement, know that others will infer something else entirely.
Depends on whether the laws are good or not.
Analogy: I’m a big fan of NFL football. I think there are many rule changes that are needed. But there are plenty of new proposed rule changes that I oppose, too. Status quo is better than bad change.
Feel free to infer whatever you wish. Others may infer that unicorns doing pirouettes across rainbows is totally rad. That doesn’t mean it’s at all related to what I wrote.
But isn’t that the default assumption? Pointing it out would just be redundant.
That’s not what he said. He didn’t oppose bad laws and support good ones. He said he didn’t want anything to be done. If he meant something else he should say something else.
One should care how one’s image is presented, and behave and speak in the way that best reflect their desires. To do otherwise is just lazy or dishonest.
You’re basically saying that unicorns doing pirouettes across rainbows is totally rad. Whatever point you THINK you’re making with that statement, know that others will infer something else entirely.
No, I’m saying you’re either purposefully or accidentally unclear. Say what you mean, its not that hard. I suspect you’re fine with speculation, as it allows you wiggle room in your beliefs so you won’t have to commit to a hard ideology that may get you trapped in illogical reasoning.
You said you want nothing to be done in government. That means you think everything is fine the way it is, or is the most perfect that we can ever be. It is a reasonable inference from your words. And an utterly stupid belief
It’s the best damned methodology ever.
If you are having trouble understanding a particular statement, you’d be better served asking an actual question. I know it’s hard, reading for comprehension, but you never know until you try it!
Or you can continue to amuse with haphazard interpretations and doing celebratory pelvic thrusts of ignorance. For example:
No. This is false and you are wrong. My statement, in its entirety:
First, it’s a hypothetical. RTFirefly made a statement that the diagram in the OP showed clear choices in the direction of each party and questioned why that was bad. In response** Sam Lowry** stated that the trend illustrated in the OP is bad because of how little gets done. Second, the OP is about the Senate, not all government as a whole, not even all of the federal government, let alone state, and local. How you translate that into a statement about all government as a whole, that everything is perfect the way it is, no progress needs to be had, and that America has attained perfection is beyond me but that interpretation is of your own concoction. Lazy or dishonest indeed.
Clear enough for you, champ? Let me know when you catch that unicorn.
You should have just said that in the first place. I’m glad even someone like you can change. I don’t really care what you believe outside of posting on this board, but I’d like it to be clear so that I can react to the words properly. See that you keep this habit up in the future
Just so we’re clear -
This is a false statement. You are wrong. I’m not sure if your mistake was deliberate, was it?
Let’s imagine a teenager standing outside a liquor store asking patrons, “Would you buy me a six pack of beer if I gave you $20?” One person says in response, “I’m going to tell the cops that there’s a 17 year old here who is trying to buy beer!”
Then the teenager responds, “That is a false statement! You are wrong. I was simply asking if someone “would” accept my proposal, I wasn’t actually asking for someone to carry it out.”
Bone, your statement about “what if I want nothing done” is reasonably interpreted as a carefully worded representation of your views. YogSosoth had the same interpretation I did. If you weren’t implying that, the problem is with what you wrote, not how YogSosoth or I read it.
Are you saying you think it’s a reasonable extrapolation to jump from discussions of the Senate to all government in the entire country? And even further, that everything in America is perfect just the way it is? To me that’s a pretty big leap, but okay.