|
|
| Re: Mooch County USA (910287) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (910750) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Feb 18 21:49:42 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by Edwards! on Sat Feb 18 21:41:24 2012. I believe we're supposed to. They have stick on eyeballs now that make it look like you're paying attention ... here ... try 'em! :)
|
|
|
| (910753) | |
another racist smaz post |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Sat Feb 18 21:50:52 2012, in response to Mooch County USA, posted by SMAZ on Fri Feb 17 13:44:11 2012. I've yet to see a Smaz post, or even reply that wasn't hateful to blacks and Chicanos. It's beyond disgusting. Why do you all still click on his? |
|
|
| (910760) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Feb 18 22:06:45 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by WillD on Sat Feb 18 20:04:10 2012. If it's being done illegally, willd, then you should turn the information over to the FBI. If it's legal then why would the IRS care, willd? I just think that you are making statements that you cannot back up. If you don't want to go to the FBI then post the information here. We're waiting willd. |
|
|
| (910761) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Feb 18 22:19:08 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by dand124 on Sat Feb 18 21:12:43 2012. Why is that relevant? What matters isn’t the number of people in the income group it’s how the income groups votes. This thread isn’t about the number of rich people in red states.Because that eliminates the internal validity of the conclusion you've reached. There are many other explanations for the data as you've presented it because we don't have any information as to the number of people within each group. For example, perhaps the states with the smallest number of rich people who hold the most disproportionate fraction of the wealth are more inclined to vote Republican. They will skew the results without that skew being reflected in the presentation of data. There are other problems, but IMHO that's merely the most outstanding problem with this shoddy presentation of that data. Except he provided absolutely no evidence that the people receiving government benefits are the one voting republican. Oh please. If the NY Times had inserted a layer into that GIS to indicate the way a given county voted in 2008 you and the other fools would have claimed it showed an agenda. THIW. Thankfully you can also find the 2008 Electoral Results for each county on the NY Times site as well. It doesn't take much effort to see that relatively few of the counties which were even slightly 'won' by Obama in 2008 are very dependent upon federal assistance. Admittedly, there are exceptions, such as Menifee County, KY; Webster County, WV; and Wilcox and Perry counties in Alabama. But for every blue colored county on the electoral map which is identified as a problem on the map of federal subsidies, there are dozens of counties which were staunchly pro-McCain and where federal subsidies make up a percentage of all income which is equal or greater to the Democratically dominated areas. You’re either and idiot or intellectually dishonest I said in the post you were responding to that I posted that graphic for the map more than the graph but you chose to ignore that information. Because the maps themselves are intellectually dishonest without knowing the methodology by which he arrived at those conclusions. I also posted a link to the book with far more information just because information doesn’t exist online doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. If you feel it'd help your case you're more than welcome to quote at length from it, so long as you properly cite its usage. And while I hate playing the credential card the book and the graph created by a professor of Political science at Columbia. I don't care who it was created by. Without knowing the methodology behind it, the graphs and maps are completely worthless. The only person being intellectually dishonest around here is you. You thought you could stick a graph and some maps in to make your point for you, but not everyone is going to accept the tripe you're trying to sell. |
|
|
| (910766) | |
Re: another racist smaz post |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Feb 18 22:33:13 2012, in response to another racist smaz post, posted by orange blossom special on Sat Feb 18 21:50:52 2012. ????? |
|
|
| (910768) | |
Re: another racist smaz post |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Feb 18 22:37:05 2012, in response to Re: another racist smaz post, posted by italianstallion on Sat Feb 18 22:33:13 2012. Olog opened up a candy store, he's handing out lib pills ... I think those ones were cherry. :) |
|
|
| (910770) | |
Re: another racist smaz post |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Feb 18 22:40:31 2012, in response to Re: another racist smaz post, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Feb 18 22:37:05 2012. Heh. |
|
|
| (910771) | |
Re: another racist smaz post |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 22:45:13 2012, in response to another racist smaz post, posted by orange blossom special on Sat Feb 18 21:50:52 2012. Because that's what liberals like. |
|
|
| (910772) | |
Re: another racist smaz post |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Sat Feb 18 22:47:17 2012, in response to Re: another racist smaz post, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 22:45:13 2012. Yes this coming from a guy who calls people Nazi supporters at the drop of a hat... be quiet hypocrite. |
|
|
| (910773) | |
Re: another racist smaz post |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Sat Feb 18 22:47:50 2012, in response to Re: another racist smaz post, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 22:45:13 2012. Yes this coming from a guy who calls people Nazi supporters at the drop of a hat... be quiet hypocrite. |
|
|
| (910782) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by dand124 on Sat Feb 18 23:41:07 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by WillD on Sat Feb 18 22:19:08 2012. There are many other explanations for the data as you've presented it because we don't have any information as to the number of people within each group.The number of people in each group is irrelevant to my statement I claimed: it's the rich people in those area's that vote for republicans not the poor people. Then I linked to the map that backed it up. The number of rich and poor people in those areas has no relevance to my statement. Oh please. If the NY Times had inserted a layer into that GIS to indicate the way a given county voted in 2008 you and the other fools would have claimed it showed an agenda. THIW. Thankfully you can also find the 2008 Electoral Results for each county on the NY Times site as well. It doesn't take much effort to see that relatively few of the counties which were even slightly 'won' by Obama in 2008 are very dependent upon federal assistance. Admittedly, there are exceptions, such as Menifee County, KY; Webster County, WV; and Wilcox and Perry counties in Alabama. But for every blue colored county on the electoral map which is identified as a problem on the map of federal subsidies, there are dozens of counties which were staunchly pro-McCain and where federal subsidies make up a percentage of all income which is equal or greater to the Democratically dominated areas. Counties don’t receive benefits counties don’t’ vote people receive benefits and people vote. Showing that counties where a large number of people receive does not prove that the individuals who receive the benefits are same people that are voting republican. He provided no evidence that the people who receive the benefits are the ones voting republican. If you are SMAZ have evidence that the people who receive benefits are same people who vote republican you are free to provide it as it is all you do is whine that my evidence doesn’t show something that no one claims it is showing, while SMAZ posts stupid pictures. Because the maps themselves are intellectually dishonest without knowing the methodology by which he arrived at those conclusions. i it a few posts up. the book has more information if you want to find it posted a link to amazon meanwhile no one has posted any evidence that the people who receive benifits are the same people who vote republican. I don't care who it was created by. Without knowing the methodology behind it, the graphs and maps are completely worthless. The only person being intellectually dishonest around here is you. You thought you could stick a graph and some maps in to make your point for you, but not everyone is going to accept the tripe you're trying to sell. I provided more evidence to back up my case rich people in poor states vote republican and poor people in poor states vote democratic than SMAZ did to prove his case that poor people in poor states vote republican. I cited my source it is now incumbent upon you to prove that my source is wrong. |
|
|
| (910784) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by dand124 on Sun Feb 19 00:16:41 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by WillD on Sat Feb 18 22:19:08 2012. For example, perhaps the states with the smallest number of rich people who hold the most disproportionate fraction of the wealth are more inclined to vote Republican. They will skew the results without that skew being reflected in the presentation of data.How does that skew the data? My statement was that the rich people in those areas are the ones voting republican the (possible) fact that the number of rich people is small in no way effects the accuracy of the underlying statement. you and the other fools would have claimed it showed an agenda. Does this mean you think I’m a Republican or conservative? I’m not either I’m a classical liberal, but you have the “with us or against us” mentality and can’t tell the difference. |
|
|
| (910791) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Feb 19 00:43:05 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by WillD on Sat Feb 18 22:19:08 2012. there you go...One can say the sky is bleach blond..make a graph with a mathematical equation to support it..and still be dead ass wrong. |
|
|
| (910799) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Sun Feb 19 01:09:41 2012, in response to Mooch County USA, posted by SMAZ on Fri Feb 17 13:44:11 2012. I wonder who are the recipients in northern Michigan.... |
|
|
| (910801) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by dand124 on Sun Feb 19 01:45:34 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by WillD on Sat Feb 18 20:52:50 2012. ok I looked at the CNN exit polls from 2008 the only states where McCain won voter under $30,000(data on voters under 30,000was not available for CT, DE MA, NJ,UT and VT) are Alaska, Idaho, Kansas and WyomingWhile Obama won voters over $100,000 in California, Colorado, Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington And in every state republicans did better with people over $100,000 than under $30,000 So poor voters voted republican in all of 4 states while Democrats got Rich voters in 18. That backs up the idea that the difference between red and blue state is how upper income voters vote not lower income voters. |
|
|
| (910802) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by dand124 on Sun Feb 19 01:45:55 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by WillD on Sat Feb 18 20:52:50 2012. ok I looked at the CNN exit polls from 2008 the only states where McCain won voter under $30,000(data on voters under 30,000was not available for CT, DE MA, NJ,UT and VT) are Alaska, Idaho, Kansas and WyomingWhile Obama won voters over $100,000 in California, Colorado, Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington And in every state republicans did better with people over $100,000 than under $30,000 So poor voters voted republican in all of 4 states while Democrats got Rich voters in 18. That backs up the idea that the difference between red and blue state is how upper income voters vote not lower income voters. here are the exit polls |
|
|
| (910803) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 19 01:48:20 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by Edwards! on Sun Feb 19 00:43:05 2012. It's what *makes* the MBA. Hell ... even Train Dude got Excel and made charts. Ah, if only he had gone to become a Powerpoint Jedi. Heh. |
|
|
| (910810) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 19 02:10:36 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by dand124 on Sun Feb 19 01:45:34 2012. And in every state republicans did better with people over $100,000 than under $30,000What a way to destroy your case. All that means is the GOP may have carried the vote of people in Mooch County USA making over $100,000 by 85%-15 versus the 65%-35% carried by the GOP by Mooch Countiers making less than $30,000. My point stands. |
|
|
| (910811) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 19 02:16:16 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by JayMan on Sun Feb 19 01:09:41 2012. I wonder who are the recipients in northern Michigan....Ted Nugent fans. |
|
|
| (910814) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 19 02:24:35 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 19 02:16:16 2012. And Michael Moore. :) |
|
|
| (910817) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by dand124 on Sun Feb 19 02:27:52 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 19 02:10:36 2012. 65%-35% carried by the GOP by Mooch Countiers making less than $30,000.In the Vast Majority of Red states Obama won voters earning under 30k;in no state did republican do anywhere near that well with people making less that $30,000 someone isn't a mooch because their neighbor receives benefits. |
|
|
| (910824) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by dand124 on Sun Feb 19 03:10:46 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by dand124 on Fri Feb 17 13:45:46 2012. ok i had some time on my hand and found the peer reviewed article on the same subject as the book it is availible here |
|
|
| (910826) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 19 06:35:51 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by dand124 on Sat Feb 18 19:24:06 2012. There is no fallacy. Much of the poor whites in the heartland, south, (and yes there are plenty of them) vote Republican. |
|
|
| (910827) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 19 06:36:16 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by dand124 on Sat Feb 18 19:44:10 2012. And that is false. |
|
|
| (910828) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 19 06:36:59 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by Edwards! on Sat Feb 18 21:41:24 2012. I am not the one that says poor whites in the south and heartland don't vote for Republicans. |
|
|
| (910829) | |
Re: proper name |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Feb 19 06:42:46 2012, in response to another racist smaz post, posted by orange blossom special on Sat Feb 18 21:50:52 2012. Is the correct name "Chicano" or "Latino"? I've heard both used, as well as Chica and Latina. What about Hispanic? |
|
|
| (910830) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 19 06:43:12 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by dand124 on Sun Feb 19 02:27:52 2012. Those red states are also states where a large porporton of Blacks, generally poor blacks live too. Those Blacks usually vote Democrat. However, there's also plenty poor whites in those states too which vote Republican. Neither party has a monopoly on either poor or rich. |
|
|
| (910851) | |
Re: another racist smaz post |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun Feb 19 08:43:56 2012, in response to another racist smaz post, posted by orange blossom special on Sat Feb 18 21:50:52 2012. I've yet to see a post of yours that makes any sense.Maybe it's like a dog whistle, something that only you and Olog can hear :P your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (910882) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by dand124 on Sun Feb 19 10:24:40 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 19 06:36:16 2012. it's true in Mississippi Obama won voters under 50,000 59%-41%in Kentucky 50% to 48 % in Arkansas 51 to 47 and in West Virginia 52 46 Obama won voters under 30,000 in those states by larger margins. |
|
|
| (910884) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Sun Feb 19 11:42:57 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by dand124 on Sun Feb 19 10:24:40 2012. jackass LOSERtarians like you need to be locked up. |
|
|
| (910899) | |
Re: another racist smaz post |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Sun Feb 19 14:04:59 2012, in response to Re: another racist smaz post, posted by Fred G on Sun Feb 19 08:43:56 2012. you have to read my posts first before pulling a subwaysurf and making claims as facts. |
|
|
| (910900) | |
Re: proper name |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Sun Feb 19 14:06:07 2012, in response to Re: proper name, posted by Dave on Sun Feb 19 06:42:46 2012. Chicano appears to be more acceptable today.Saying latin for this bunch makes as much sense as how the gov't calls Syrians White. |
|
|
| (910979) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 19 17:14:53 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 19 06:35:51 2012. That's because they're "ignant" whatever that means. :) |
|
|
| (910995) | |
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Feb 19 17:43:42 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 19 17:14:53 2012. Heh. |
|
|
| (911150) | |
Re: proper name |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 20 04:15:59 2012, in response to Re: proper name, posted by Dave on Sun Feb 19 06:42:46 2012. Chicano refers exclusively to Mexicans. Latino is general. |
|
|
| (911158) | |
Re: proper name |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Feb 20 04:51:53 2012, in response to Re: proper name, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 20 04:15:59 2012. A Chicano is a multi-generation American of Mexican descent. |
|
|
| (911196) | |
Re: proper name |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon Feb 20 09:46:08 2012, in response to Re: proper name, posted by SMAZ on Mon Feb 20 04:51:53 2012. Thanks, guys. |
|
|
| (911543) | |
Re: another racist smaz post |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Feb 21 09:28:47 2012, in response to Re: another racist smaz post, posted by ClearAspect on Sat Feb 18 22:47:50 2012. +1 |
|
|
| (911550) | |
Re: another racist smaz post |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Tue Feb 21 09:42:56 2012, in response to Re: another racist smaz post, posted by ClearAspect on Sat Feb 18 22:47:50 2012. You take him too seriously...It's just another day for Hai.  your pal, Fred |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||