Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
Wow. Nice self portrait.
still can't point out a single factual inaccuracy, can ya?The report was retracted because the CRS agrees with the Republicans. How did the Republicans retract the report? Show me how they have the power to do that?
I can point out with factual accuracy that the study has been withdrawn by the CRS. NOT THE REPUBLICANS. If thats my job all of the sudden, then I am getting way under paid. LIKE I SAID, we wait for the Liberals at the CRS to tell us themselves why they retracted it, and then the process will play itself out from their. How is it possible to explain that any more clearly for you.., retard?still can't point out a single factual inaccuracy, can ya?
*thereI can point out with factual accuracy that the study has been withdrawn by the CRS. NOT THE REPUBLICANS. If thats my job all of the sudden, then I am getting way under paid. LIKE I SAID, we wait for the Liberals at the CRS to tell us themselves why they retracted it, and then the process will play itself out from their. How is it possible to explain that any more clearly for you.., retard?
Reports are only retracted for good reason, not simply because Republicans don't like what they see.*there
as in, there are no factual inaccuracies, only butthurt republicans who still believe in the trickle down fairy.
that was trickle down from the free market, not from upward government redistribution.Bucky,
Without the Trickle Down fairy, I'd never afford a $10,500 projector. God bless the rich and their fickle nature!
dude, we already caught you in one lie here. how many more before this thread is over?Reports are only retracted for good reason, not simply because Republicans don't like what they see.
This one is going to turn around and bite you in the ass.
if you could produce one single iota of evidence, that would be great.LOL. buck, you are so desperate to put me on defense. Its clear the lie that has been exposed here is from Liberals who work for the CRS, and tried to get away with pulling a fast one.
You want to take this into a different topic. I'm still posting about this so called "nonpartisan study" , that was written up by a Liberal who donates money to Obama's campaign and also the DNC. Explain how that is not bias. Do it or else that makes you a "liar"if you could produce one single iota of evidence, that would be great.
but you have no evidence of that and have been caught in a lie already.
bumpbumpbumpThe story posted gives the reason why the study was retracted, because of Republican pressure. Where does it say anywhere that it was retracted because of factual inaccuracies?
Don't get mad, don't come back with personal attacks. Answer the question, where does it say that?
red was asking for the pertinent data from the PDF, not the seething leftist blog entry (at taxpayers expense) to which you refer.Red... with all due respect... did you even click the link? It is like one paragraph... the cutting and pasting and opining would be more for you to read than the link.
time to upgrade the 98 compaq presario, dude.the pdf wont open for me
the sources on the bottom of the graphs reveals the most likely problem with this study.View attachment 2396107From that study View attachment 2396108