Re: Not at all....
Dan
location: WV➔VA➔FL➔WV➔OH
listening to: so many intros
registered: 1997.08.29
Pat said - Careful with the wording there. I’ve always loved the way the press words what they call a cut. A cut to me means less than before. Like if it was 100 it was cut to 80.
Here they mean it was 100 and it is going to 125 instead of 135. That is a decrease in the increase not a cut. This is actually revealed in the article.
Pat, you are using some pretty strong Kentian logic here. Where in the article is it "revealed" that the cuts EEE was talking about (local police grants) aren't in fact cuts - per your definition?
You know as well as I do that this budget as proposed has no chance of going through Congress as written. It is merely a cover your ass tactic so Bush can look back on the growing mountain of debt he's presided over and say "I tried". Is this smoke and mirrors approach your idea of fiscal conservatism?
Dan
–--
throw out the hardware, let's do it right
Dan
(view)
Pat said - Careful with the wording there. I’ve always loved the way the press words what they call a cut. A cut to me means less than before. Like if it was 100 it was cut to 80.
Here they mean it was 100 and it is going to 125 instead of 135. That is a decrease in the increase not a cut. This is actually revealed in the article.
Pat, you are using some pretty strong Kentian logic here. Where in the article is it "revealed" that the cuts EEE was talking about (local police grants) aren't in fact cuts - per your definition?
You know as well as I do that this budget as proposed has no chance of going through Congress as written. It is merely a cover your ass tactic so Bush can look back on the growing mountain of debt he's presided over and say "I tried". Is this smoke and mirrors approach your idea of fiscal conservatism?
Dan
–--
throw out the hardware, let's do it right
[
login] |
[
register]
you need to be logged in to post and reply to message board posts
