Because the target market is the urban, manicured, hipster. Can't you see the natural toned brown leather and creme colored paint? The whole thing is supposed to look like a bicycle that someone found in Aunt Jane's backyard shed. It's not supposed to look cool, comfortable, or modern.
Very good point, and I'm in total agreement. 1913 was a disastrous year for the country. The 16th and 17th amendments were ratified, and the federal reserve was created. That was the year that the people gave the government the ability to destroy the country.
You're the retard. Are you saying the defense budget didn't contain funds for the wars? Did they spend money out of some black slush fund that was never really appropriated? Have you really been sitting here all these years, thinking that the reason deficits under Obama went well past the trillion dollar mark, is because he added the "wars to the budget"? What budget?
No, he increased deficit spending by an order of magnitude, and then normalized it. I will not praise him for deficits that would have been records in 2008.
Which is more? 161 billion, or 1.5 trillion? The difference is an order of magnitude. Let's stop pretending, like the parent did, that Barack Obama is some sort of harbinger of fiscal restraint. Since Democrats took control in January of 2007, the budgeting process has been nonexistent. Deficit spending has gone through the roof. Their first three fiscal years in power had record deficits, and not by small piddly amounts. I'm partisan about this because both sides are not equally to blame. Stop being an apologist asshat.
Well if we're going by what congress spends, then we need to start counting at 2007 when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over. They are responsible for the spending handed to Obama. The last Republican budget signed into law had a deficit of 161 billion.
Congress can leave it out of all the budget resolutions it wants to. Until we have a regular budget process again, and the senate starts doing it's job, it's completely pointless.
You can't hold a gun to heads of the American People like that. Defunding anything that was passed into law and found constitutional is extreme, regardless of the quality or effects of the law. Congress isn't actually allowed to do anything.
This only works if you statistically cast Bush in the worst light possible, and Obama in the best. The fact remains that the national debt is now 17.3 trillion. Obama has spent far, far, more money that we don't have than any previous president.
On average, being the key phrase. When he had a supermajority in government for the first 2 years of his presidency, he didn't need to sign executive orders. Now he has pretty much flat out said that is how he plans to govern for the rest of his term. How many is he signing per year now?
Saudi Arabia, maybe, as they still practice public executions and other such barbaric practices. Israel not so much. Your ridiculous, left wing false moral equivalencies are showing.
No, it was written in secret and passed by one party entirely using unusual parliamentary procedures. That's why it's partisan bullshit. And tyrannical. But I think you, as a supporter of a single payer system would naturally support tyrannical law.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because having it reviewed by a bunch of like minded yes-men always makes something more believable. The peer review process is a sham.
Because the target market is the urban, manicured, hipster. Can't you see the natural toned brown leather and creme colored paint? The whole thing is supposed to look like a bicycle that someone found in Aunt Jane's backyard shed. It's not supposed to look cool, comfortable, or modern.
What does the IPCC have to do with researchers adjusting their data?
...how the probability of being affected by one of these stack overflow bugs, increases with the age of the driver. Just sayin.
According to that, the president requested 101 billion for war funding. Where did the other 1.4 trillion in deficits come from?
Probably the one's that didn't "adjust" the data.
Very good point, and I'm in total agreement. 1913 was a disastrous year for the country. The 16th and 17th amendments were ratified, and the federal reserve was created. That was the year that the people gave the government the ability to destroy the country.
You're the retard. Are you saying the defense budget didn't contain funds for the wars? Did they spend money out of some black slush fund that was never really appropriated? Have you really been sitting here all these years, thinking that the reason deficits under Obama went well past the trillion dollar mark, is because he added the "wars to the budget"? What budget?
No, he increased deficit spending by an order of magnitude, and then normalized it. I will not praise him for deficits that would have been records in 2008.
Which is more? 161 billion, or 1.5 trillion? The difference is an order of magnitude. Let's stop pretending, like the parent did, that Barack Obama is some sort of harbinger of fiscal restraint. Since Democrats took control in January of 2007, the budgeting process has been nonexistent. Deficit spending has gone through the roof. Their first three fiscal years in power had record deficits, and not by small piddly amounts. I'm partisan about this because both sides are not equally to blame. Stop being an apologist asshat.
It should also be added that the legislative branch appropriates money, the executive branch spends it for the most part.
Well if we're going by what congress spends, then we need to start counting at 2007 when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over. They are responsible for the spending handed to Obama. The last Republican budget signed into law had a deficit of 161 billion.
He sure copied Dick Cheney on same sex marriage.
Congress can leave it out of all the budget resolutions it wants to. Until we have a regular budget process again, and the senate starts doing it's job, it's completely pointless.
You can't hold a gun to heads of the American People like that. Defunding anything that was passed into law and found constitutional is extreme, regardless of the quality or effects of the law. Congress isn't actually allowed to do anything.
This only works if you statistically cast Bush in the worst light possible, and Obama in the best. The fact remains that the national debt is now 17.3 trillion. Obama has spent far, far, more money that we don't have than any previous president.
On average, being the key phrase. When he had a supermajority in government for the first 2 years of his presidency, he didn't need to sign executive orders. Now he has pretty much flat out said that is how he plans to govern for the rest of his term. How many is he signing per year now?
And yet, a brontosaurus would disagree with that.
oops that's billiion not trillion. Take three zeros off that.
Which one do you think best fits a 4,500,000,000,000 year time frame?
Saudi Arabia, maybe, as they still practice public executions and other such barbaric practices. Israel not so much. Your ridiculous, left wing false moral equivalencies are showing.
Really? So attacking the party of the people proposing the law rather than the merits of the law itself is not an ad hominem?
So, how many people?
As long as your congressman isn't Henry Waxman...
No, it was written in secret and passed by one party entirely using unusual parliamentary procedures. That's why it's partisan bullshit. And tyrannical. But I think you, as a supporter of a single payer system would naturally support tyrannical law.