Rick - we are just using basic common sense here. Of course we do not have info on all 1,279 Romney voters but it doesn't require a PhD in statistics to use common sense here.
You are pushing faulty assumptions.
In no way do I think that 100% of the Republican voters are not on the dole, I am just saying that the numbers are manipulated in your guy's statements. You are making connections that are not there.
Rick - we are just using basic common sense here. Of course we do not have info on all 1,279 Romney voters but it doesn't require a PhD in statistics to use common sense here.
You are pushing faulty assumptions.
In no way do I think that 100% of the Republican voters are not on the dole, I am just saying that the numbers are manipulated in your guy's statements. You are making connections that are not there.
No. I am pushing common sense that is on an elementary level. I will use the example of the 47% dis us soon that we had a while back.
There is data out there that shows that the states with the highest % of people in the 47% group were overwhelmingly "red states".
It is true that we do not know exactly what the break down of people in these red states are who are dems / repubs and who receive benefits. But in these red states (Bama / miss / Louisiana etc.) the overwhelmingly majority are republicans. Therefore the fact that these states have a higher amount of people receiving benefits means...
To try to imply there is no correlation is silly. In othe words you are saying that the percent of people in a population that already makes up an overwhelmingly minority in these states (dems) who are in the 47% is so high that they surprisingly out number the % of people in overwhelimngly "blue states" who are in the 47%. That does not add up there man.
No. I am pushing common sense that is on an elementary level. I will use the example of the 47% dis us soon that we had a while back.
There is data out there that shows that the states with the highest % of people in the 47% group were overwhelmingly "red states".
It is true that we do not know exactly what the break down of people in these red states are who are dems / repubs and who receive benefits. But in these red states (Bama / miss / Louisiana etc.) the overwhelmingly majority are republicans. Therefore the fact that these states have a higher amount of people receiving benefits means...
To try to imply there is no correlation is silly. In othe words you are saying that the percent of people in a population that already makes up an overwhelmingly minority in these states (dems) who are in the 47% is so high that they surprisingly out number the % of people in overwhelimngly "blue states" who are in the 47%. That does not add up there man.
It really doesn't. First of all a 60/40 voter split may be "overwhelming" as a result, but it isn't large enough to make valid assumptions on who receives welfare. More importantly, states like New York, Ca, and Illinois are blue as can be, and have many many times more residents than the states you mention. Those are the states where the predominant mass of recipients come from irrespective of what the percentage is for the smaller states.
It really doesn't. First of all a 60/40 voter split may be "overwhelming" as a result, but it isn't large enough to make valid assumptions on who receives welfare. More importantly, states like New York, Ca, and Illinois are blue as can be, and have many many times more residents than the states you mention. Those are the states where the predominant mass of recipients come from irrespective of what the percentage is for the smaller states.
And where does Texas fall in the mix??? I am not pointing fingers or trying to say that one group is better / worse than others. I am just trying to point out that the IMO action that dems are moo hers while the repubs "for the most part" would never go there is very misleading
And where does Texas fall in the mix??? I am not pointing fingers or trying to say that one group is better / worse than others. I am just trying to point out that the IMO action that dems are moo hers while the repubs "for the most part" would never go there is very misleading
Espy - so you are implying that the data that shows that "red states" fall more in the 47%tile than "blue states" is misleading or can be interpreted another way????
We do not agree on much but come on man... That is a classic example of grasping for straws...
Espy - so you are implying that the data that shows that "red states" fall more in the 47%tile than "blue states" is misleading or can be interpreted another way????
We do not agree on much but come on man... That is a classic example of grasping for straws...
Well said Mattbrot. To think that Dems are overwhelmingly "moochers or free loaders" is just not supported by data and logic. There are many Dems that are on welfare or food stamps and don't make a strong effort to get off but on the same hand there are many Republicans on them who feel entitled to these benefits and call others doing what they do "moochers".
Well said Mattbrot. To think that Dems are overwhelmingly "moochers or free loaders" is just not supported by data and logic. There are many Dems that are on welfare or food stamps and don't make a strong effort to get off but on the same hand there are many Republicans on them who feel entitled to these benefits and call others doing what they do "moochers".
Slim looking at the polling numbers looks like Fox and Reuters are lowering his average. No way he would lose to anyone he GOP can offer. Who would beat him? Romney? Newt? Santorum? Lol to those clowns.
14 - you are still in the business of cherry picking polls? Seriously bro you should have learned your lesson from last year but it is your money you lost, not mine.
Slim looking at the polling numbers looks like Fox and Reuters are lowering his average. No way he would lose to anyone he GOP can offer. Who would beat him? Romney? Newt? Santorum? Lol to those clowns.
14 - you are still in the business of cherry picking polls? Seriously bro you should have learned your lesson from last year but it is your money you lost, not mine.
You can make whatever correlations that you want, but the fact remains that the stats as they stand do not support your thesis.
Is there a probability that there is some correlation, sure, but you will never be able to determine the degree of correlation.
I think you would find that there are other groups attempting to make similar claims with similar problems. Look at the proportion of African Americans in states
You can make whatever correlations that you want, but the fact remains that the stats as they stand do not support your thesis.
Is there a probability that there is some correlation, sure, but you will never be able to determine the degree of correlation.
I think you would find that there are other groups attempting to make similar claims with similar problems. Look at the proportion of African Americans in states
Rick the county in Kentucky the article cites is 98% white. So at most they have around 100 non-whites there some of whom are probably not registered to vote based on age or maybe even citizenship.
I really don't care if these people are voting Republican but I constantly am amused to hear people say that Democrats are "takers, moochers, etc." when it is pretty obvious in this case that there are many Republican "takers and moochers" too.
Rick the county in Kentucky the article cites is 98% white. So at most they have around 100 non-whites there some of whom are probably not registered to vote based on age or maybe even citizenship.
I really don't care if these people are voting Republican but I constantly am amused to hear people say that Democrats are "takers, moochers, etc." when it is pretty obvious in this case that there are many Republican "takers and moochers" too.
lords I dont deny the politicians are lead by money... but how much?
It would be interested to see the actual figures on where the money goes...
who do you think in terms of dollars on a yearly basis does most of the money go to?
A. the poor
B. the rich/corporations
C. the politicians
Im thinking the order from largest amount of dollars to spent per a year to least...
B,A,C...
you think the order is different?
Unless you are a liberal, and we know that you aren't, then you even adding "The Rich/Corporations" must be a typo.
"We" don't spend any money on the rich or corporations. They pay a percentage of their salaries/investments/take-in towards taxes. Them not paying their "fair share" doesn't mean "We" spend money on them. We just get less from them, which I am totally fine with. That's less money the govt can p*ss away.
lords I dont deny the politicians are lead by money... but how much?
It would be interested to see the actual figures on where the money goes...
who do you think in terms of dollars on a yearly basis does most of the money go to?
A. the poor
B. the rich/corporations
C. the politicians
Im thinking the order from largest amount of dollars to spent per a year to least...
B,A,C...
you think the order is different?
Unless you are a liberal, and we know that you aren't, then you even adding "The Rich/Corporations" must be a typo.
"We" don't spend any money on the rich or corporations. They pay a percentage of their salaries/investments/take-in towards taxes. Them not paying their "fair share" doesn't mean "We" spend money on them. We just get less from them, which I am totally fine with. That's less money the govt can p*ss away.
probably the minority, in raw numbers, but possibly higher per capita, but if we are going by the logic provided you could jump to a lot of conclusions.
that is why numbers can lie when they are in the hands of people with an agenda. You can make a lot of correlations that do not exist.
probably the minority, in raw numbers, but possibly higher per capita, but if we are going by the logic provided you could jump to a lot of conclusions.
that is why numbers can lie when they are in the hands of people with an agenda. You can make a lot of correlations that do not exist.
Unless you are a liberal, and we know that you aren't, then you even adding "The Rich/Corporations" must be a typo.
"We" don't spend any money on the rich or corporations. They pay a percentage of their salaries/investments/take-in towards taxes. Them not paying their "fair share" doesn't mean "We" spend money on them. We just get less from them, which I am totally fine with. That's less money the govt can p*ss away.
Unless you are a liberal, and we know that you aren't, then you even adding "The Rich/Corporations" must be a typo.
"We" don't spend any money on the rich or corporations. They pay a percentage of their salaries/investments/take-in towards taxes. Them not paying their "fair share" doesn't mean "We" spend money on them. We just get less from them, which I am totally fine with. That's less money the govt can p*ss away.
Ironically to the surprise of nobody yesterday the GOP House voted with 15 defections (no Democrats voted for it) to slash food stamps. Ironically Rep. Hal Rogers who represents this Kenticky county that had the highest percentage increase of food stamp recipients was not one of the 15 as he voted to slash food stamps. I'd bet his constituents are happy about him slashing the government assistance to those "moochers". Hopefully nobody will let them know these stats!
Ironically to the surprise of nobody yesterday the GOP House voted with 15 defections (no Democrats voted for it) to slash food stamps. Ironically Rep. Hal Rogers who represents this Kenticky county that had the highest percentage increase of food stamp recipients was not one of the 15 as he voted to slash food stamps. I'd bet his constituents are happy about him slashing the government assistance to those "moochers". Hopefully nobody will let them know these stats!
of course the republicans have their hands out the most to get free garbage from hard working taxpayers. that's just how things are. but if whey whine and complain about black folks doing it, maybe no one will notice that they do it the most.
but the main thing is to keep corporate welfare and our bloated defense budget (making sure veterans don't get food stamps once they come back because support our troops end at discharge like life begins at ejaculation and ends at birth) at the expense of the poor, sick and especially their children because we're a christian nation and that's how jesus would have wanted it.
of course the republicans have their hands out the most to get free garbage from hard working taxpayers. that's just how things are. but if whey whine and complain about black folks doing it, maybe no one will notice that they do it the most.
but the main thing is to keep corporate welfare and our bloated defense budget (making sure veterans don't get food stamps once they come back because support our troops end at discharge like life begins at ejaculation and ends at birth) at the expense of the poor, sick and especially their children because we're a christian nation and that's how jesus would have wanted it.
The unnecessary purchase of military hardware is welfare for corporate
shareholders. The use of private contractors provides lucrative profits
for corporate owners and shareholders. The privatization of government
services transfers profits (an inefficiency when a government service is
provided by a private entity for no reason) to the corporate
shareholders. Farm subsidies that go to corporate farms is a transfer of
tax receipts to a few shareholders. Even the food stamp program that
feeds many is a boon for corporate shareholders given that a percentage
of food stamps provide ample profits. Personal welfare is a pittance
when welfare is redefined to include all those sourcing their revenues
from the government.
The unnecessary purchase of military hardware is welfare for corporate
shareholders. The use of private contractors provides lucrative profits
for corporate owners and shareholders. The privatization of government
services transfers profits (an inefficiency when a government service is
provided by a private entity for no reason) to the corporate
shareholders. Farm subsidies that go to corporate farms is a transfer of
tax receipts to a few shareholders. Even the food stamp program that
feeds many is a boon for corporate shareholders given that a percentage
of food stamps provide ample profits. Personal welfare is a pittance
when welfare is redefined to include all those sourcing their revenues
from the government.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.