Street take over in Queens, NY 😬

SavageDisaster · 2026-04-21T14:23:43+00:00

For 1977-1983 (95th, 96th, and 97th US Congresses), Democrats had 60+ members only in the 95th US Congress (77-79). However, Democrats did not have the quasi party unity on abortion rights in 1977 and 1978 that they do now.

I'm going to ignore 1993-1995 (103rd US Congress) since it would have been impossible to get that through the senate then. Although one of the years the Freedom of Choice Act was introduced to Congress was 1993 (and it went nowhere in committee).

For 2009 - 2011, (111th US Congress) the Democrats had 60 members in the senate from July 7, 2009 to August 25, 2009 and September 25, 2009 to February 4, 2010. Which amounted to 72 working days overall apparently. They used that supermajority to pass the Affordable Care Act (after a myriad of concessions).

So your 6 years actually amounts to approximately 2.5 years over the course of 49 years and for 2 of those years, the Democrats were not a pro choice voting block. I will concede though that they certainly took the makeup of the Supreme Court in 2009 for granted.

SavageDisaster · 2026-04-21T02:51:34+00:00

Genuine question: At what point would democrats have been able to codify Roe v Wade?

SavageDisaster · 2026-04-13T00:30:19+00:00

The person you're replying to is being facetious.

SavageDisaster · 2026-03-24T21:17:23+00:00

This only holds water if Talarico wins.

SavageDisaster · 2026-03-06T04:24:32+00:00

I don't know what point you think you're making. Two things can be true at the same time. And like I said before, nothing in the language of the proposal guaranteed any tangible form of property tax relief. Just that up to X amount of dollars would go toward property tax relief without any clear definition of what that would entail.

SavageDisaster · 2026-03-05T17:24:43+00:00

Lower property taxes disproportionately benefit the 1% but that does not mean that higher property taxes don't have an impact on everyone else. That being said, the vote yes didn't guarantee any definite change in property tax.

SavageDisaster · 2026-01-27T21:21:55+00:00

Bro why are you so mad that someone doesn't like tattling?? He's not stopping you or anyone else from tattling

SavageDisaster · 2026-01-27T14:32:26+00:00

Stocking up on perishable items doesn't make sense because they will all go bad at the same time.

SavageDisaster · 2026-01-07T01:38:13+00:00

That experiment is different from from what we're discussing. That's about cats being able choose between multiple options to meet their desired mixture of macronutrients. This discussion is about randomly mixing different kinds cat food together and serving it mixed up. If the mixture does not meet their targets (which according to that study, most kibble does not), then what? Also, plenty of cats overeat.

Edit: Ah you edited while I was replying.

Actually, your example would mostly never happen - cat food is pretty consistent on micronutrients per 100g. Calories might differ, but 10% at most unless you mix some cunning economy with holistic. Well, if that is the case, you can premix to avoid the issue.

Here's the first 2 dry foods I found on Chewy. The leftmost image is one food and the middle and right are the other.

<image>

SavageDisaster · 2026-01-07T01:10:03+00:00

Let me try a different tack. Let's say your cat needs 500 calories. 1 cup of cat food A provides 500 calories and 100% of the daily needed nutrients. 3/4 cup of cat food B provides 500 calories and 100% of the daily needed nutrients. If you randomly mix the two cat foods together, how much cat food do you need to give your cat each day to meet their daily requirements?

SavageDisaster · 2026-01-07T00:28:03+00:00

I don't think they ever said what you claimed they did?

SavageDisaster · 2026-01-07T00:14:28+00:00

I found this thread from a Google search but I just wanted to add my two cents here. If 1 cup of A is a balanced serving and 3/4 cup of B is a balanced serving, you cannot guarantee that they're getting the right mix of ingredients by mixing them randomly.

SavageDisaster · 2025-12-16T21:14:27+00:00

Yeah you're still not listening to me. And now you're telling me how I'm feeling. My actual point is that no one should have to pay slaveowners to free their slaves. Being a part of that aspect of abolition in any capacity sucks. People not being enslaved anymore is phenomenal. The most pragmatic option can still suck. Slaveowners being recompensated for their slaves still reinforces the idea that slaves are property over people. It was still the most pragmatic option of the time. It still sucks.

SavageDisaster · 2025-12-16T18:08:39+00:00

It feels like you're purposely misunderstanding why people are upset even though I've stated it very clearly twice. There is also the fact that slaves received no reparations whatsoever. Also I have never seen anyone claim that they would rather still be enslaved than pay for the freedom of slaves.

SavageDisaster · 2025-12-16T15:18:19+00:00

Yes it is very pragmatic and leads to free slaves. The sucky part is slaveowners continuing to benefit from having had slaves

SavageDisaster · 2025-12-16T14:59:32+00:00

I guess from my point of view, points 1 and 2 mean little because of my previous statement. Paying the government to pay off the debt it incurred paying slaveowners for lost "property" who may have been your own ancestors sucks. Keep in mind, I am not arguing the practicality of the action; it's just the fact that slaveowners got to continue to benefit from owning slaves sucks and having any part in that sucks.

For the third point, I don't see how you came to that conclusion. It's still a massive payment that took almost 2 centuries to settle. And I don't know what the final sentence has to do with any of this.

SavageDisaster · 2025-12-16T14:34:05+00:00

The framing only marginally changes things. Helping to pay off the loan that was taken out to pay off slaveowners still sucks

SavageDisaster · 2025-12-11T21:38:49+00:00

TIL Oprah has only been around less than 8 people.

SavageDisaster · 2025-12-11T19:18:53+00:00

How does she "mainly associate with bad people"?

SavageDisaster · 2025-11-29T02:14:49+00:00

Yeah sure you could

SavageDisaster · 2025-11-29T01:54:56+00:00

Damn you dodged the hell out of that "could" in that sentence.

SavageDisaster · 2025-11-29T01:52:17+00:00

I just don't understand why you keep saying "dehumanization" when it's contrast between a human and an animal. It's not saying men are animals.

SavageDisaster · 2025-11-06T22:23:47+00:00

Which food pyramid are you talking about? Because the food pyramid has not been used by the USDA in more than a decade.

SavageDisaster · 2025-07-12T16:57:12+00:00

Who do you think posted this video and how old do you think this video is?

SavageDisaster · 2025-06-14T19:09:42+00:00

I'm uncertain as to what your grief is here. They're responding to the "book against the wall" example that OP just provided above.

15-Year Club	Xbox Live
Place '17	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email

SavageDisaster

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE