On Apr 17, 3:17*pm, Ignoramus25624 ignoramus25...@NOSPAM.
25624.invalid wrote:
On 2010-04-17, wrote:





On Apr 17, 10:55?am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Dammit, Dan, if I did that, you'd just say that, "no, you have to look at
the individual states and see what percentages they're gaining or losing,
because Eregon was talking about states." Admit it. That's exactly what
you'd do, right?

*).

In other words, you don't care what the facts are, you just want to
speculate about something that fits your ideology, just like Eregon did.
Not interested in finding out what you're talking about, you'd rather live
on conservative economic bull**** and content yourself with that.

Too bad. By digging out the facts, you get all kinds of surprises, and you
realize that the ideologies are all bull****. But it's not very comforting
that way, so hang on to your speculations. You always can cook up a good,
comforting narrative that way.

I really do not care. *And I am not trying to cook up a comforting
narrative. *You might note that I did not say anything about right to
work states being better or worse than non right to work states. *Or
anything concerning the original statement or even your statements.

What I am saying is that you can not average percentages the way you
did and get meaningful data. *You say that the average *job loss
percentage *for the Northeastern states is -5.71 *And that is
incorrect.

Instead of getting all bent out of shape and assuming that I am trying
to come up with something to fit my ideology, you would do better to
cool down and read what I am saying. *You get three figure numbers
that do not mean a thing.

I am just pointing out that your use of data is incorrect.

Populations of states are very easy to get, and calculating the
population average for a set of state is a 20 minute
exercise. Relistically, I would not expect the population weighted
average to be significantly different from unweighted average.

Practically speaking, the main problem of conservatives is that they
listen to conservative entertainment programs. Those programs are all
about money, keeping the audience so that advertisers can sell them
various junk. They never wanted to be truthful or even to approach
reailty. Conservatives swallow this hook, line and sinker and are a
prey to advertisers.

I have a radio in the shed to keep pests away. It has a conservative
host. What is kind of shocking is selection of advertisers. I have
heard only the following advertised:

o Impotence, Weight loss and balding cures (the ads sound
* like the products are likely to be snake oil)
o IRA scams related to high fee gold IRA accounts
o Other investment scams

This really does not fit the image of conservatives that I had in my
mind. Though I no longer consider myself such, I generally would hope
that they, on average, should in some ways be above the level that the
ads imply.

But, possibly, this is a radio program only intended for a subset of
conservatives. That radio program is all about ideology, never
carefully considering anything. So I am not surprised that its
listeners are basically suckers, and get ads intended for suckers.
Non-suckers just would not listen to this. I can try to find out what
it is. I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh, but would love to know what
is advertised on his programs.

The kinds of conservatives that I used to associate with, before the
war against Iraq, would be the sort of people who read Wall Street
Journal editorials, Milton Friedman, etc. I still susbcribe to most
of his ideas, but know that in reality they are usually perverted and
used to steal money from wherever they are applied.

i

When my blood pressure is low, I listen to WABC radio out of New York.
An alarming number of advertisers are for tax dodgers "I owed the IRS
$45,000, but this company got it settled for $1500." and credit
dodgers "I owed $45,000 on my credit cards, but this company got it
settled for $1500."

For a bunch of conservatives, they have racked up some serious debt.
For a bunch of "family values" folks, they do seem to be in an awful
hurry to shirk their responsibilities.

A lot like Gunner.