Dow Jones 32k!

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

Liar! You quoted the dollars and admonished someone for suggesting it was only 9% of the bill. 

You as always a fail to see the forest for the trees. What a loser. 

Good Lord, Pete.  Here's a direct quote of what I posted back on page 2 of this thread:

"So you’re saying only 9% of the funds are going to the people?  Can I ask you where you got that figure from, exactly?"

Here's how you interpreted my statement:

"This from the guy who thinks all those checks are going for COVID relief. "

Those are not the same things.  I understand that you think they are, but that's because it seems that you can't read.  

If you want to pick a fight here and say you also meant that only 9% of the bill is going to the American people, that's fine, but all you're doing is proving my point that you are a weapons-grade moron.  

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

Liar! You quoted the dollars and admonished someone for suggesting it was only 9% of the bill. 

You as always a fail to see the forest for the trees. What a loser. 

Good Lord, Pete.  Here's a direct quote of what I posted back on page 2 of this thread:

"So you’re saying only 9% of the funds are going to the people?  Can I ask you where you got that figure from, exactly?"

Here's how you interpreted my statement:

"This from the guy who thinks all those checks are going for COVID relief. "

Those are not the same things.  I understand that you think they are, but that's because it seems that you can't read.  

If you want to pick a fight here and say you also meant that only 9% of the bill is going to the American people, that's fine, but all you're doing is proving my point that you are a weapons-grade moron.  

This discussion is and was conflated, yes. He said 91% pork which implies 9% not pork. I would argue checks to people that have never been economically damaged by COVID in any way is pork. You said people. You intentionally conflated “people” as not pork.He said pork and you said people. He wrote pork but you read people? So, you interpreted or read his post incorrectly? Does the context of his post matter? 

 Sometimes “people” are pork and sometimes they aren’t. So, he’s likely correct. 

Anyway, it’s all water over the dam John. Sorry to bother you. Looks like we’re both weapons grade morons? 

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

Liar! You quoted the dollars and admonished someone for suggesting it was only 9% of the bill. 

You as always a fail to see the forest for the trees. What a loser. 

Good Lord, Pete.  Here's a direct quote of what I posted back on page 2 of this thread:

"So you’re saying only 9% of the funds are going to the people?  Can I ask you where you got that figure from, exactly?"

Here's how you interpreted my statement:

"This from the guy who thinks all those checks are going for COVID relief. "

Those are not the same things.  I understand that you think they are, but that's because it seems that you can't read.  

If you want to pick a fight here and say you also meant that only 9% of the bill is going to the American people, that's fine, but all you're doing is proving my point that you are a weapons-grade moron.  

This discussion is and was conflated, yes. He said 91% pork which implies 9% not pork. I would argue checks to people that have never been economically damaged by COVID in any way is pork. You said people. You intentionally conflated “people” as not pork.He said pork and you said people. He wrote pork but you read people? So, you interpreted or read his post incorrectly? Does the context of his post matter? 

 Sometimes “people” are pork and sometimes they aren’t. So, he’s likely correct. 

Anyway, it’s all water over the dam John. Sorry to bother you. Looks like we’re both weapons grade morons? 

Yeah, I don't think so, lol. 

I think anyone here with an ounce of sense can understand what I was asking (and why it was a question) vs your fairly obvious mischaracterization of my position, and draw their own conclusions.  But, good job, good effort on your part.  

I'll let you have the last word on this, because that seems important to you.  

stv8r

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

Liar! You quoted the dollars and admonished someone for suggesting it was only 9% of the bill. 

You as always a fail to see the forest for the trees. What a loser. 

Good Lord, Pete.  Here's a direct quote of what I posted back on page 2 of this thread:

"So you’re saying only 9% of the funds are going to the people?  Can I ask you where you got that figure from, exactly?"

Here's how you interpreted my statement:

"This from the guy who thinks all those checks are going for COVID relief. "

Those are not the same things.  I understand that you think they are, but that's because it seems that you can't read.  

If you want to pick a fight here and say you also meant that only 9% of the bill is going to the American people, that's fine, but all you're doing is proving my point that you are a weapons-grade moron.  

This discussion is and was conflated, yes. He said 91% pork which implies 9% not pork. I would argue checks to people that have never been economically damaged by COVID in any way is pork. You said people. You intentionally conflated “people” as not pork.He said pork and you said people. He wrote pork but you read people? So, you interpreted or read his post incorrectly? Does the context of his post matter? 

 Sometimes “people” are pork and sometimes they aren’t. So, he’s likely correct. 

Anyway, it’s all water over the dam John. Sorry to bother you. Looks like we’re both weapons grade morons? 

Yeah, I don't think so, lol. 

I think anyone here with an ounce of sense can understand what I was asking (and why it was a question) vs your fairly obvious mischaracterization of my position, and draw their own conclusions.  But, good job, good effort on your part.  

I'll let you have the last word on this, because that seems important to you.  

I know this is difficult but try to follow along.  This article may help clear up a few things in this discussion. Feel free to try to disprove any of the statements.  Dems always rely on twisting the narrative to fit their needs.  All the same have a nice night.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democrats-1-9-trillion-covid-bill-pelosi-kevin-mccarthy

Terpderpitude

stv8r said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

Liar! You quoted the dollars and admonished someone for suggesting it was only 9% of the bill. 

You as always a fail to see the forest for the trees. What a loser. 

Good Lord, Pete.  Here's a direct quote of what I posted back on page 2 of this thread:

"So you’re saying only 9% of the funds are going to the people?  Can I ask you where you got that figure from, exactly?"

Here's how you interpreted my statement:

"This from the guy who thinks all those checks are going for COVID relief. "

Those are not the same things.  I understand that you think they are, but that's because it seems that you can't read.  

If you want to pick a fight here and say you also meant that only 9% of the bill is going to the American people, that's fine, but all you're doing is proving my point that you are a weapons-grade moron.  

This discussion is and was conflated, yes. He said 91% pork which implies 9% not pork. I would argue checks to people that have never been economically damaged by COVID in any way is pork. You said people. You intentionally conflated “people” as not pork.He said pork and you said people. He wrote pork but you read people? So, you interpreted or read his post incorrectly? Does the context of his post matter? 

 Sometimes “people” are pork and sometimes they aren’t. So, he’s likely correct. 

Anyway, it’s all water over the dam John. Sorry to bother you. Looks like we’re both weapons grade morons? 

Yeah, I don't think so, lol. 

I think anyone here with an ounce of sense can understand what I was asking (and why it was a question) vs your fairly obvious mischaracterization of my position, and draw their own conclusions.  But, good job, good effort on your part.  

I'll let you have the last word on this, because that seems important to you.  

I know this is difficult but try to follow along.  This article may help clear up a few things in this discussion. Feel free to try to disprove any of the statements.  Dems always rely on twisting the narrative to fit their needs.  All the same have a nice night.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democrats-1-9-trillion-covid-bill-pelosi-kevin-mccarthy

The article does not make the claim that 91% of the bill is pork.  So I think you just made that up, fat boy.

stv8r

Terpderpitude said:

stv8r said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

Liar! You quoted the dollars and admonished someone for suggesting it was only 9% of the bill. 

You as always a fail to see the forest for the trees. What a loser. 

Good Lord, Pete.  Here's a direct quote of what I posted back on page 2 of this thread:

"So you’re saying only 9% of the funds are going to the people?  Can I ask you where you got that figure from, exactly?"

Here's how you interpreted my statement:

"This from the guy who thinks all those checks are going for COVID relief. "

Those are not the same things.  I understand that you think they are, but that's because it seems that you can't read.  

If you want to pick a fight here and say you also meant that only 9% of the bill is going to the American people, that's fine, but all you're doing is proving my point that you are a weapons-grade moron.  

This discussion is and was conflated, yes. He said 91% pork which implies 9% not pork. I would argue checks to people that have never been economically damaged by COVID in any way is pork. You said people. You intentionally conflated “people” as not pork.He said pork and you said people. He wrote pork but you read people? So, you interpreted or read his post incorrectly? Does the context of his post matter? 

 Sometimes “people” are pork and sometimes they aren’t. So, he’s likely correct. 

Anyway, it’s all water over the dam John. Sorry to bother you. Looks like we’re both weapons grade morons? 

Yeah, I don't think so, lol. 

I think anyone here with an ounce of sense can understand what I was asking (and why it was a question) vs your fairly obvious mischaracterization of my position, and draw their own conclusions.  But, good job, good effort on your part.  

I'll let you have the last word on this, because that seems important to you.  

I know this is difficult but try to follow along.  This article may help clear up a few things in this discussion. Feel free to try to disprove any of the statements.  Dems always rely on twisting the narrative to fit their needs.  All the same have a nice night.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democrats-1-9-trillion-covid-bill-pelosi-kevin-mccarthy

The article does not make the claim that 91% of the bill is pork.  So I think you just made that up, fat boy.

Calm down Snowflake. Maybe a more accurate statement would have been 91% of the bill does not directly relate to Covid relief.  

BTW lmao at your troll account

Terpderpitude

stv8r said:

Terpderpitude said:

stv8r said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

Liar! You quoted the dollars and admonished someone for suggesting it was only 9% of the bill. 

You as always a fail to see the forest for the trees. What a loser. 

Good Lord, Pete.  Here's a direct quote of what I posted back on page 2 of this thread:

"So you’re saying only 9% of the funds are going to the people?  Can I ask you where you got that figure from, exactly?"

Here's how you interpreted my statement:

"This from the guy who thinks all those checks are going for COVID relief. "

Those are not the same things.  I understand that you think they are, but that's because it seems that you can't read.  

If you want to pick a fight here and say you also meant that only 9% of the bill is going to the American people, that's fine, but all you're doing is proving my point that you are a weapons-grade moron.  

This discussion is and was conflated, yes. He said 91% pork which implies 9% not pork. I would argue checks to people that have never been economically damaged by COVID in any way is pork. You said people. You intentionally conflated “people” as not pork.He said pork and you said people. He wrote pork but you read people? So, you interpreted or read his post incorrectly? Does the context of his post matter? 

 Sometimes “people” are pork and sometimes they aren’t. So, he’s likely correct. 

Anyway, it’s all water over the dam John. Sorry to bother you. Looks like we’re both weapons grade morons? 

Yeah, I don't think so, lol. 

I think anyone here with an ounce of sense can understand what I was asking (and why it was a question) vs your fairly obvious mischaracterization of my position, and draw their own conclusions.  But, good job, good effort on your part.  

I'll let you have the last word on this, because that seems important to you.  

I know this is difficult but try to follow along.  This article may help clear up a few things in this discussion. Feel free to try to disprove any of the statements.  Dems always rely on twisting the narrative to fit their needs.  All the same have a nice night.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democrats-1-9-trillion-covid-bill-pelosi-kevin-mccarthy

The article does not make the claim that 91% of the bill is pork.  So I think you just made that up, fat boy.

Calm down Snowflake. Maybe a more accurate statement would have been 91% of the bill does not directly relate to Covid relief.  

BTW lmao at your troll account

I started the thread, dumbass.

And you’re still making **** up.

fishlessman

despite efforts to knock it off the rails, the trump train rolls on, full steam ahead....33k

stv8r

Terpderpitude said:

stv8r said:

Terpderpitude said:

stv8r said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

Liar! You quoted the dollars and admonished someone for suggesting it was only 9% of the bill. 

You as always a fail to see the forest for the trees. What a loser. 

Good Lord, Pete.  Here's a direct quote of what I posted back on page 2 of this thread:

"So you’re saying only 9% of the funds are going to the people?  Can I ask you where you got that figure from, exactly?"

Here's how you interpreted my statement:

"This from the guy who thinks all those checks are going for COVID relief. "

Those are not the same things.  I understand that you think they are, but that's because it seems that you can't read.  

If you want to pick a fight here and say you also meant that only 9% of the bill is going to the American people, that's fine, but all you're doing is proving my point that you are a weapons-grade moron.  

This discussion is and was conflated, yes. He said 91% pork which implies 9% not pork. I would argue checks to people that have never been economically damaged by COVID in any way is pork. You said people. You intentionally conflated “people” as not pork.He said pork and you said people. He wrote pork but you read people? So, you interpreted or read his post incorrectly? Does the context of his post matter? 

 Sometimes “people” are pork and sometimes they aren’t. So, he’s likely correct. 

Anyway, it’s all water over the dam John. Sorry to bother you. Looks like we’re both weapons grade morons? 

Yeah, I don't think so, lol. 

I think anyone here with an ounce of sense can understand what I was asking (and why it was a question) vs your fairly obvious mischaracterization of my position, and draw their own conclusions.  But, good job, good effort on your part.  

I'll let you have the last word on this, because that seems important to you.  

I know this is difficult but try to follow along.  This article may help clear up a few things in this discussion. Feel free to try to disprove any of the statements.  Dems always rely on twisting the narrative to fit their needs.  All the same have a nice night.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democrats-1-9-trillion-covid-bill-pelosi-kevin-mccarthy

The article does not make the claim that 91% of the bill is pork.  So I think you just made that up, fat boy.

Calm down Snowflake. Maybe a more accurate statement would have been 91% of the bill does not directly relate to Covid relief.  

BTW lmao at your troll account

I started the thread, dumbass.

And you’re still making **** up.

Just because you started the thread "dumbass" it doesn't mean it's not your troll account. So obvious. Not making anything up.  When Libs are confronted with actual facts they resort to name calling and threats.  Typical. smh

Terpderpitude

stv8r said:

Terpderpitude said:

stv8r said:

Terpderpitude said:

stv8r said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

Liar! You quoted the dollars and admonished someone for suggesting it was only 9% of the bill. 

You as always a fail to see the forest for the trees. What a loser. 

Good Lord, Pete.  Here's a direct quote of what I posted back on page 2 of this thread:

"So you’re saying only 9% of the funds are going to the people?  Can I ask you where you got that figure from, exactly?"

Here's how you interpreted my statement:

"This from the guy who thinks all those checks are going for COVID relief. "

Those are not the same things.  I understand that you think they are, but that's because it seems that you can't read.  

If you want to pick a fight here and say you also meant that only 9% of the bill is going to the American people, that's fine, but all you're doing is proving my point that you are a weapons-grade moron.  

This discussion is and was conflated, yes. He said 91% pork which implies 9% not pork. I would argue checks to people that have never been economically damaged by COVID in any way is pork. You said people. You intentionally conflated “people” as not pork.He said pork and you said people. He wrote pork but you read people? So, you interpreted or read his post incorrectly? Does the context of his post matter? 

 Sometimes “people” are pork and sometimes they aren’t. So, he’s likely correct. 

Anyway, it’s all water over the dam John. Sorry to bother you. Looks like we’re both weapons grade morons? 

Yeah, I don't think so, lol. 

I think anyone here with an ounce of sense can understand what I was asking (and why it was a question) vs your fairly obvious mischaracterization of my position, and draw their own conclusions.  But, good job, good effort on your part.  

I'll let you have the last word on this, because that seems important to you.  

I know this is difficult but try to follow along.  This article may help clear up a few things in this discussion. Feel free to try to disprove any of the statements.  Dems always rely on twisting the narrative to fit their needs.  All the same have a nice night.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democrats-1-9-trillion-covid-bill-pelosi-kevin-mccarthy

The article does not make the claim that 91% of the bill is pork.  So I think you just made that up, fat boy.

Calm down Snowflake. Maybe a more accurate statement would have been 91% of the bill does not directly relate to Covid relief.  

BTW lmao at your troll account

I started the thread, dumbass.

And you’re still making **** up.

Just because you started the thread "dumbass" it doesn't mean it's not your troll account. So obvious. Not making anything up.  When Libs are confronted with actual facts they resort to name calling and threats.  Typical. smh

lolol "actual facts" haha.  You posted a link to an opinion piece by McCarthy over at Fox News as something that would be hard for people here to refute.  You are a joke.  That's not name calling, that's just a fact.  

Terpderpitude

fishlessman said:

despite efforts to knock it off the rails, the trump train rolls on, full steam ahead....33k

Thanks, OBiden!

stv8r

Terpderpitude said:

stv8r said:

Terpderpitude said:

stv8r said:

Terpderpitude said:

stv8r said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

Liar! You quoted the dollars and admonished someone for suggesting it was only 9% of the bill. 

You as always a fail to see the forest for the trees. What a loser. 

Good Lord, Pete.  Here's a direct quote of what I posted back on page 2 of this thread:

"So you’re saying only 9% of the funds are going to the people?  Can I ask you where you got that figure from, exactly?"

Here's how you interpreted my statement:

"This from the guy who thinks all those checks are going for COVID relief. "

Those are not the same things.  I understand that you think they are, but that's because it seems that you can't read.  

If you want to pick a fight here and say you also meant that only 9% of the bill is going to the American people, that's fine, but all you're doing is proving my point that you are a weapons-grade moron.  

This discussion is and was conflated, yes. He said 91% pork which implies 9% not pork. I would argue checks to people that have never been economically damaged by COVID in any way is pork. You said people. You intentionally conflated “people” as not pork.He said pork and you said people. He wrote pork but you read people? So, you interpreted or read his post incorrectly? Does the context of his post matter? 

 Sometimes “people” are pork and sometimes they aren’t. So, he’s likely correct. 

Anyway, it’s all water over the dam John. Sorry to bother you. Looks like we’re both weapons grade morons? 

Yeah, I don't think so, lol. 

I think anyone here with an ounce of sense can understand what I was asking (and why it was a question) vs your fairly obvious mischaracterization of my position, and draw their own conclusions.  But, good job, good effort on your part.  

I'll let you have the last word on this, because that seems important to you.  

I know this is difficult but try to follow along.  This article may help clear up a few things in this discussion. Feel free to try to disprove any of the statements.  Dems always rely on twisting the narrative to fit their needs.  All the same have a nice night.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democrats-1-9-trillion-covid-bill-pelosi-kevin-mccarthy

The article does not make the claim that 91% of the bill is pork.  So I think you just made that up, fat boy.

Calm down Snowflake. Maybe a more accurate statement would have been 91% of the bill does not directly relate to Covid relief.  

BTW lmao at your troll account

I started the thread, dumbass.

And you’re still making **** up.

Just because you started the thread "dumbass" it doesn't mean it's not your troll account. So obvious. Not making anything up.  When Libs are confronted with actual facts they resort to name calling and threats.  Typical. smh

lolol "actual facts" haha.  You posted a link to an opinion piece by McCarthy over at Fox News as something that would be hard for people here to refute.  You are a joke.  That's not name calling, that's just a fact.  

I offered you the opportunity to dispute anything I posted.  You could not. That wasn't opinion, it was fact.  Feel free to refute it with factual posts.  If you can't feel free to deflect with your petty insults and false accusations of fake news. Otherwise go to your safe space and suck on your binky.  

Terpderpitude

stv8r said:

Terpderpitude said:

stv8r said:

Terpderpitude said:

stv8r said:

Terpderpitude said:

stv8r said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

Liar! You quoted the dollars and admonished someone for suggesting it was only 9% of the bill. 

You as always a fail to see the forest for the trees. What a loser. 

Good Lord, Pete.  Here's a direct quote of what I posted back on page 2 of this thread:

"So you’re saying only 9% of the funds are going to the people?  Can I ask you where you got that figure from, exactly?"

Here's how you interpreted my statement:

"This from the guy who thinks all those checks are going for COVID relief. "

Those are not the same things.  I understand that you think they are, but that's because it seems that you can't read.  

If you want to pick a fight here and say you also meant that only 9% of the bill is going to the American people, that's fine, but all you're doing is proving my point that you are a weapons-grade moron.  

This discussion is and was conflated, yes. He said 91% pork which implies 9% not pork. I would argue checks to people that have never been economically damaged by COVID in any way is pork. You said people. You intentionally conflated “people” as not pork.He said pork and you said people. He wrote pork but you read people? So, you interpreted or read his post incorrectly? Does the context of his post matter? 

 Sometimes “people” are pork and sometimes they aren’t. So, he’s likely correct. 

Anyway, it’s all water over the dam John. Sorry to bother you. Looks like we’re both weapons grade morons? 

Yeah, I don't think so, lol. 

I think anyone here with an ounce of sense can understand what I was asking (and why it was a question) vs your fairly obvious mischaracterization of my position, and draw their own conclusions.  But, good job, good effort on your part.  

I'll let you have the last word on this, because that seems important to you.  

I know this is difficult but try to follow along.  This article may help clear up a few things in this discussion. Feel free to try to disprove any of the statements.  Dems always rely on twisting the narrative to fit their needs.  All the same have a nice night.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democrats-1-9-trillion-covid-bill-pelosi-kevin-mccarthy

The article does not make the claim that 91% of the bill is pork.  So I think you just made that up, fat boy.

Calm down Snowflake. Maybe a more accurate statement would have been 91% of the bill does not directly relate to Covid relief.  

BTW lmao at your troll account

I started the thread, dumbass.

And you’re still making **** up.

Just because you started the thread "dumbass" it doesn't mean it's not your troll account. So obvious. Not making anything up.  When Libs are confronted with actual facts they resort to name calling and threats.  Typical. smh

lolol "actual facts" haha.  You posted a link to an opinion piece by McCarthy over at Fox News as something that would be hard for people here to refute.  You are a joke.  That's not name calling, that's just a fact.  

I offered you the opportunity to dispute anything I posted.  You could not. That wasn't opinion, it was fact.  Feel free to refute it with factual posts.  If you can't feel free to deflect with your petty insults and false accusations of fake news. Otherwise go to your safe space and suck on your binky.  

You’re the kind of guy who posts “the sky is orange, that’s a fact!” and then when nobody responds (because we’re all laughing our asses off) you’re convinced it’s because they could not.  Like I said, a joke.  A big fat one.  Good luck with the beetus.

stv8r

Terpderpitude said:

stv8r said:

Terpderpitude said:

stv8r said:

Terpderpitude said:

stv8r said:

Terpderpitude said:

stv8r said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

Liar! You quoted the dollars and admonished someone for suggesting it was only 9% of the bill. 

You as always a fail to see the forest for the trees. What a loser. 

Good Lord, Pete.  Here's a direct quote of what I posted back on page 2 of this thread:

"So you’re saying only 9% of the funds are going to the people?  Can I ask you where you got that figure from, exactly?"

Here's how you interpreted my statement:

"This from the guy who thinks all those checks are going for COVID relief. "

Those are not the same things.  I understand that you think they are, but that's because it seems that you can't read.  

If you want to pick a fight here and say you also meant that only 9% of the bill is going to the American people, that's fine, but all you're doing is proving my point that you are a weapons-grade moron.  

This discussion is and was conflated, yes. He said 91% pork which implies 9% not pork. I would argue checks to people that have never been economically damaged by COVID in any way is pork. You said people. You intentionally conflated “people” as not pork.He said pork and you said people. He wrote pork but you read people? So, you interpreted or read his post incorrectly? Does the context of his post matter? 

 Sometimes “people” are pork and sometimes they aren’t. So, he’s likely correct. 

Anyway, it’s all water over the dam John. Sorry to bother you. Looks like we’re both weapons grade morons? 

Yeah, I don't think so, lol. 

I think anyone here with an ounce of sense can understand what I was asking (and why it was a question) vs your fairly obvious mischaracterization of my position, and draw their own conclusions.  But, good job, good effort on your part.  

I'll let you have the last word on this, because that seems important to you.  

I know this is difficult but try to follow along.  This article may help clear up a few things in this discussion. Feel free to try to disprove any of the statements.  Dems always rely on twisting the narrative to fit their needs.  All the same have a nice night.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democrats-1-9-trillion-covid-bill-pelosi-kevin-mccarthy

The article does not make the claim that 91% of the bill is pork.  So I think you just made that up, fat boy.

Calm down Snowflake. Maybe a more accurate statement would have been 91% of the bill does not directly relate to Covid relief.  

BTW lmao at your troll account

I started the thread, dumbass.

And you’re still making **** up.

Just because you started the thread "dumbass" it doesn't mean it's not your troll account. So obvious. Not making anything up.  When Libs are confronted with actual facts they resort to name calling and threats.  Typical. smh

lolol "actual facts" haha.  You posted a link to an opinion piece by McCarthy over at Fox News as something that would be hard for people here to refute.  You are a joke.  That's not name calling, that's just a fact.  

I offered you the opportunity to dispute anything I posted.  You could not. That wasn't opinion, it was fact.  Feel free to refute it with factual posts.  If you can't feel free to deflect with your petty insults and false accusations of fake news. Otherwise go to your safe space and suck on your binky.  

You’re the kind of guy who posts “the sky is orange, that’s a fact!” and then when nobody responds (because we’re all laughing our asses off) you’re convinced it’s because they could not.  Like I said, a joke.  A big fat one.  Good luck with the beetus.

Sure thing.  Go back to pretending you are a big man on this forum and actually matter (with your main account). Unfortunately you have shown yourself to be a loser who can't back up his claims except with insults and innuendo. 

Terpderpitude

stv8r said:

Terpderpitude said:

stv8r said:

Terpderpitude said:

stv8r said:

Terpderpitude said:

stv8r said:

Terpderpitude said:

stv8r said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

Liar! You quoted the dollars and admonished someone for suggesting it was only 9% of the bill. 

You as always a fail to see the forest for the trees. What a loser. 

Good Lord, Pete.  Here's a direct quote of what I posted back on page 2 of this thread:

"So you’re saying only 9% of the funds are going to the people?  Can I ask you where you got that figure from, exactly?"

Here's how you interpreted my statement:

"This from the guy who thinks all those checks are going for COVID relief. "

Those are not the same things.  I understand that you think they are, but that's because it seems that you can't read.  

If you want to pick a fight here and say you also meant that only 9% of the bill is going to the American people, that's fine, but all you're doing is proving my point that you are a weapons-grade moron.  

This discussion is and was conflated, yes. He said 91% pork which implies 9% not pork. I would argue checks to people that have never been economically damaged by COVID in any way is pork. You said people. You intentionally conflated “people” as not pork.He said pork and you said people. He wrote pork but you read people? So, you interpreted or read his post incorrectly? Does the context of his post matter? 

 Sometimes “people” are pork and sometimes they aren’t. So, he’s likely correct. 

Anyway, it’s all water over the dam John. Sorry to bother you. Looks like we’re both weapons grade morons? 

Yeah, I don't think so, lol. 

I think anyone here with an ounce of sense can understand what I was asking (and why it was a question) vs your fairly obvious mischaracterization of my position, and draw their own conclusions.  But, good job, good effort on your part.  

I'll let you have the last word on this, because that seems important to you.  

I know this is difficult but try to follow along.  This article may help clear up a few things in this discussion. Feel free to try to disprove any of the statements.  Dems always rely on twisting the narrative to fit their needs.  All the same have a nice night.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democrats-1-9-trillion-covid-bill-pelosi-kevin-mccarthy

The article does not make the claim that 91% of the bill is pork.  So I think you just made that up, fat boy.

Calm down Snowflake. Maybe a more accurate statement would have been 91% of the bill does not directly relate to Covid relief.  

BTW lmao at your troll account

I started the thread, dumbass.

And you’re still making **** up.

Just because you started the thread "dumbass" it doesn't mean it's not your troll account. So obvious. Not making anything up.  When Libs are confronted with actual facts they resort to name calling and threats.  Typical. smh

lolol "actual facts" haha.  You posted a link to an opinion piece by McCarthy over at Fox News as something that would be hard for people here to refute.  You are a joke.  That's not name calling, that's just a fact.  

I offered you the opportunity to dispute anything I posted.  You could not. That wasn't opinion, it was fact.  Feel free to refute it with factual posts.  If you can't feel free to deflect with your petty insults and false accusations of fake news. Otherwise go to your safe space and suck on your binky.  

You’re the kind of guy who posts “the sky is orange, that’s a fact!” and then when nobody responds (because we’re all laughing our asses off) you’re convinced it’s because they could not.  Like I said, a joke.  A big fat one.  Good luck with the beetus.

Sure thing.  Go back to pretending you are a big man on this forum and actually matter (with your main account). Unfortunately you have shown yourself to be a loser who can't back up his claims except with insults and innuendo. 

What in the world are you blabbering on about, beetus?

fishlessman

heading towards 32k.....riding with biden