ADVERTISEMENT

Early numbers are in

operations of the federal government is often inefficient...there are immense opportunities to improve or stream line things

but most of that is the result of legislative requirements (at least what i have to deal with)

simply cutting the work force isn't going to improve anything...it'll actually make things even worse, move even slower, be even more inefficient
 
Keep in mind, that poster is almost always woefully ignorant on how things actually work - statistical polling being just one example.

He is a good example of what i consider to be among the most frustrating types of people that exist - ones that are of average to below-average intelligence that think they are super smart and can see the “angles” actually smart people can’t. It would be funny if it wasn’t so annoying.

America specializes in confident-stupid people.

1*sU5gEu_oucgxBvCYDVcf_Q.png
 
Problem with that is that it's an easy question to say yes to, much harder to find something significant that has 61% agreeing they want to cut or eliminate that.

Downsizing the government always sounds good in theory but when you actually start trying to make significant cuts then people start getting upset.

Yup, it's the same logic behind polling on gun control issues. Broad ideas are easy, it falls apart when everyone realizes the changes will impact their lives.
 
Keep in mind, that poster is almost always woefully ignorant on how things actually work - statistical polling being just one example.

He is a good example of what i consider to be among the most frustrating types of people that exist - ones that are of average to below-average intelligence that think they are super smart and can see the “angles” actually smart people can’t. It would be funny if it wasn’t so annoying.
Whole Lotta projection in this post.


Frankly I think the reason I drive so many of you libs crazy is you actually think you are smart where I fully admit I'm an idiot. So I'm the guy who shows up 2 minutes after tee time, wearing sandals, and beats your ass by 20 strokes and you spend your life thinking about the game and I'm over here like, let's grab a beer.
 
Shit son I haven't had to run numbers like that in 15 years... we would need a T test?

Come on brain work...
Ok, so lets say you poll 100,000 people and it adjusts all of the numbers 1% and has a 3.5% +/- confidence rate instead of 3.9%

Was it worth polling the extra 99,000 people so everyone can spend about 13 seconds looking at basically the same information?
 
Ok, so lets say you poll 100,000 people and it adjusts all of the numbers 1% and has a 3.5% +/- confidence rate instead of 3.9%

Was it worth polling the extra 99,000 people so everyone can spend about 13 seconds looking at basically the same information?
Was worth it... let me work it... flip down and reverse it.... nobody knows what she says next....




Idk man, this is dumb fodder foe us anyway. Have you seen the boobs thread?
 
Was worth it... let me work it... flip down and reverse it.... nobody knows what she says next....




Idk man, this is dumb fodder foe us anyway. Have you seen the boobs thread?
That's because it's what she said the line before but reversed. because she reversed it.

"Ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gnaht ym tup i"


But yes, it is dumb fodder. But at least it's a civil discussion, right?
 
That's because it's what she said the line before but reversed. because she reversed it.

"Ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gnaht ym tup i"


But yes, it is dumb fodder. But at least it's a civil discussion, right?
I learned something new today.

A gentleman and a scholor, thank you sir.

💯
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: millah_22
Yeah, I’m not too concerned about it. He’s making bank at Iowa and the pressure cooker known as OSU? Not seeing it.
He would have crazy good athletes, but he would prob need 2-3 years to get the players to learn his system.

Don't now if they'd give him that much time. Athleticism can only cover up so many issues in broken schemes.
 
Trump voters voted to end the world as we know it. And when the leopard comes to eat their face, as it surely will in the new world they've created, L oh effing L.
 
Statistically speaking, as long as the sample group is truly random then the numbers aren't going to change much beyond 1000. Meaning if you surveyed 100,000 people you would get basically the same percentages.
I'm thinking that stats aren't his strong suit.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT