97.635% of statistics are made up.
I guess 100% of the statistics that don't agree with your point-of-view are wrong!
Nah, only 97.635%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey, that exclamation button really is fun. :hello:
And I rest my case . . . . and oh yeah "!"
Just for the heck of it, what exactly is your case that you're so passionate about? While we're at it, what is my point of view?
I think your "case" is that apparently you believe that 100% of statistics are true. Whereas I was poking fun at the ridiculousness of claiming proof of anything, based on some arbitrary set of 'statistics'.
EVERYONE has an agenda, so statistics are always biased, and therefore, always to be taken with a grain of salt.
I won't bother to list my 'Professional' Résumé. Because ultimately it would prove nothing except that I am desperate to be taken seriously, too.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![]()
I was questioning those who are quick to say "Split WA" into 2 regions all because you do not agree with the politics of the west. I cited statistics which was co-sponsored by a REPUBLICAN to show that Seattle (or King County and it neighboring democrat-counties) are actually subsidizing Eastern WA.
Can you provide an explicit logical connection between opposing splitting WA into two parts and the observation that the coastal part is richer than the inland part?
Seattle elected the first Socialist to public office. At her 1st elected speech she stated, "we don't need executives! We need Boeing to be under 'democratic' public ownership by workers - by the community!" So now Seattle is back to being a two party town; democrats and socialists(is there a difference?). The college professor and social activist(shocker!) has roots in the Occupy movement(big suprise).
Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when we need him...:sniper:
And why does the DHS need the 2700 APC's they ordered??
Why do you have to be reminded again and again
I guess 100% of the statistics that don't agree with your point-of-view are wrong!
Reminded again and again? WTF are you talking about? Maybe you have me confused with someone else on this thread?
The very first time I addressed YOU in this thread, was when you posted this ridiculous supposition:
I replied with a comment worthy of such a frivolous statement.
I went back and read through the whole thread, and have come to this conclusion: You have no sense of humor, and this thread is not worth my time.