On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:09:37 -0400, NOYB wrote:


So then if it were truly balanced, the dems should make up roughly 40% of
the top 10, and 40% of the bottom ten...but that's not the case. They
make up only 30% of the top 10, and a whopping 60% of the bottom 10!

Interesting what one can do if they cherry pick the data, isn't it? If
one were looking for balance, one would expect 11 dems and 14 reps in the
bottom half, and 11 dems and 14 reps in the top half. Damn, if it ain't
so, must be balanced. Or let's look at the Dems median, 4.8, then the
Reps. median, 4.8. Damn, it must be balanced. Now, if we look at
averages, well the Reps do a whopping .4 better, but if we check for
population . . . Well, I haven't the time. I still say other factors
besides the governors party will weigh heavier in unemployment rates.


The link was not relevant to the question I posed. I asked about
unemployment rates relative to which party controlled the governor's
house. When you compare Presidential administrations, you're not comparing
apples to apples since you're comparing two completely separate periods of
time. There are too many factors to consider when comparing the time
periods of two different Presidents. Technologies change. Oil Prices
change. World economic conditions change. Wars cause change. With the
governor comparison, you're comparing head to head while each is in power
at the same exact time period...under the same economic conditions at the
federal level.

True, but it's interesting to note that the good times roll more
frequently under a Democratic President, than a Republican one.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:09:37 -0400, NOYB wrote:


So then if it were truly balanced, the dems should make up roughly 40% of
the top 10, and 40% of the bottom ten...but that's not the case. They
make up only 30% of the top 10, and a whopping 60% of the bottom 10!

Interesting what one can do if they cherry pick the data, isn't it? If
one were looking for balance, one would expect 11 dems and 14 reps in the
bottom half, and 11 dems and 14 reps in the top half. Damn, if it ain't
so, must be balanced. Or let's look at the Dems median, 4.8, then the
Reps. median, 4.8. Damn, it must be balanced. Now, if we look at
averages, well the Reps do a whopping .4 better, but if we check for
population . . . Well, I haven't the time. I still say other factors
besides the governors party will weigh heavier in unemployment rates.


The link was not relevant to the question I posed. I asked about
unemployment rates relative to which party controlled the governor's
house. When you compare Presidential administrations, you're not
comparing
apples to apples since you're comparing two completely separate periods
of
time. There are too many factors to consider when comparing the time
periods of two different Presidents. Technologies change. Oil Prices
change. World economic conditions change. Wars cause change. With the
governor comparison, you're comparing head to head while each is in power
at the same exact time period...under the same economic conditions at the
federal level.

True, but it's interesting to note that the good times roll more
frequently under a Democratic President, than a Republican one.

Perhaps the electorate can sense when troubled times from outside threats
are on the horizon, and elect Republicans to guide them safely through those
times. Then when safety returns, people feel a stronger sense of community
and want to give back to society in the way of higher taxes. ;-)

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


*JimH* wrote:

Why aren't you out on your custom made 36 foot lobster boat Krause?

Heck, even when we had our modest 32 footer we would spend every summer
weekend (and vacation days) on it cruising around.

But you seem to post here 24 x 7.

Go figure.

Why aren't you out on your boat, Jim?

But you seem to post here 24 x 7

Go figure.


Hey dummy, I don't have one at the moment. That has been stated many times
here.

You really are an idiot.

Remember, we'll be meeting Aug. 13 or so, I look forward to showing you
my driver's license, and having you call me childish names to my face,
okay? I'll bet you'll stop, IF you show up, little punk.

wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


*JimH* wrote:

Why aren't you out on your custom made 36 foot lobster boat Krause?

Heck, even when we had our modest 32 footer we would spend every
summer
weekend (and vacation days) on it cruising around.

But you seem to post here 24 x 7.

Go figure.

Why aren't you out on your boat, Jim?

But you seem to post here 24 x 7

Go figure.


Hey dummy, I don't have one at the moment. That has been stated many
times
here.

You really are an idiot.

Remember, we'll be meeting Aug. 13 or so, I look forward to showing you
my driver's license, and having you call me childish names to my face,
okay? I'll bet you'll stop, IF you show up, little punk.


Wow, I am scared Kevin. You are really one tough guy on the internet.

Idiot.

wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


*JimH* wrote:

Why aren't you out on your custom made 36 foot lobster boat Krause?

Heck, even when we had our modest 32 footer we would spend every
summer
weekend (and vacation days) on it cruising around.

But you seem to post here 24 x 7.

Go figure.

Why aren't you out on your boat, Jim?

But you seem to post here 24 x 7

Go figure.


Hey dummy, I don't have one at the moment. That has been stated many
times
here.

You really are an idiot.

Remember, we'll be meeting Aug. 13 or so, I look forward to showing you
my driver's license, and having you call me childish names to my face,
okay? I'll bet you'll stop, IF you show up, little punk.


BTW: I will be on Kelley's Island on vacation from August 7-13.....I guess
I will not have the honor of meeting with you.....and I so looked forward to
seeing you in person.

And I would have no problem finding you.....your picture is next to the word
"idiot" in the dictionary.

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
"NOBBY" wrote..
Why would you join the military if there was no chance to see combat?
Isn't
it a soldier's role to kill the enemy?


You're younger than 37, right? Actually, they give waivers for age anyway.
You can enlist.

Go ahead, you appear to believe in the cause... or are you just a
chicken**** coward?

You really are a putz. I'm not advocating that everybody should immediately
go sign up with the military. I'm pointing out that it's idiotic for
someone to join the military with the presumption that they won't see
combat...just as it's idiotic for a cop to presume that he won't ever have
to draw his gun, or a dentist to presume that he won't be exposed to a
patient with hepatitis or HIV, or...



...and no soldier ever won a battle by loud-mouthing the enemy to death.

But a certain CIC named Ronald Reagan did.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:09:37 -0400, NOYB wrote:


So then if it were truly balanced, the dems should make up roughly 40%
of
the top 10, and 40% of the bottom ten...but that's not the case. They
make up only 30% of the top 10, and a whopping 60% of the bottom 10!

Interesting what one can do if they cherry pick the data, isn't it? If
one were looking for balance, one would expect 11 dems and 14 reps in
the
bottom half, and 11 dems and 14 reps in the top half. Damn, if it
ain't
so, must be balanced. Or let's look at the Dems median, 4.8, then the
Reps. median, 4.8. Damn, it must be balanced. Now, if we look at
averages, well the Reps do a whopping .4 better, but if we check for
population . . . Well, I haven't the time. I still say other factors
besides the governors party will weigh heavier in unemployment rates.


The link was not relevant to the question I posed. I asked about
unemployment rates relative to which party controlled the governor's
house. When you compare Presidential administrations, you're not
comparing
apples to apples since you're comparing two completely separate
periods
of
time. There are too many factors to consider when comparing the time
periods of two different Presidents. Technologies change. Oil Prices
change. World economic conditions change. Wars cause change. With
the
governor comparison, you're comparing head to head while each is in
power
at the same exact time period...under the same economic conditions at
the
federal level.

True, but it's interesting to note that the good times roll more
frequently under a Democratic President, than a Republican one.

Perhaps the electorate can sense when troubled times from outside
threats
are on the horizon, and elect Republicans to guide them safely through
those
times. Then when safety returns, people feel a stronger sense of
community
and want to give back to society in the way of higher taxes. ;-)

Actually, it is due to the lack effect on the economy.....a tax cut does
not immediately create a good economy, it takes years to build, then a
liebral gets in office screws the economy and leaves it to a conservative to
correct.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:41:09 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

*JimH* wrote:


Wow, I am scared Kevin. You are really one tough guy on the internet.

Idiot.


Mext month, Hertvik will be whining about another "threat."

Uh...alliteration?

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:41:09 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

*JimH* wrote:


Wow, I am scared Kevin. You are really one tough guy on the internet.

Idiot.


Mext month, Hert will be whining about another "threat."

Uh...alliteration?

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

Krause is referring to me bringing up the threats he made to me and my wife.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:45:53 -0400, P. Fritz wrote:


Actually, it is due to the lack effect on the economy.....a tax cut does
not immediately create a good economy, it takes years to build, then a
liebral gets in office screws the economy and leaves it to a conservative
to correct.

Yeah, that's why the data on the following link has a 3, 4 ,and 5 year
lag. Sorry, Republicans still suck when it comes to managing the economy.

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm


Ah, all this talk about tax cuts, it's interesting to note that since
1980 and until recently, federal tax receipts have held remarkably
constant at @19%+-1%.GDP I noted, "until recently" because under Bush
federal tax receipts have dropped to 16.3%. Unfortunately, expenditures
are still over 19%, down from Reagan's 23%.. It's clearly true, that
Democrats are tax and spent, unfortunately Republicans spend just as
freely, or more so. They just don't tax as heavily.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFa....cfm?Docid=200