Previous 21 - 30 Next
John, Earlier you praised David Dewhurst on his column. Here it is: ----- John in OK Wrote: 5 hours ago (1:17 PM) You have a right to be proud, Mr. Dewhurst. You and Texas have recognized the truth that the right to life is the first and foremost right, without which no other rights can be enjoyed. ----- Dewhurst is an Establishment Republican as folks call him here (never mind that reminds one of the 60s and the "down with the Establishment" chants of the insurgent crowd of liberals). Dewhurst is a good man and was trashed in his bid for the US Senate by none other than Ted Cruz. So, your posts are puzzling. You praise Dewhurst and yet applaud the man who trashed him .... curious, to say the least.
Very thoughtful point. Thanks for the perspective. BTW, my late father was a wounded WWII vet. He loved the VA as did his brother who also served. As did my father in law who also served. That is anecdotal, I know. But anecdotes seem to be the "coin of the realm" here so I will add mine. These vets in their time (WWII and Korea) and the more recent Viet vets also praise the GI bill and other government initiatives. Just a little FYI.
Correction. Last sentence ... he was the man. To add: He was reviled by conservatives, although -- anyone familiar with his entire record -- would welcome him as a conservative. It is interesting that he was given space at TH.
(whispers) John in OK, David Dewhurst is the man folks here have trashed as a RINO, as part of the RINO establishment, as a country club Republican, and many descriptions that are worse. He was the man defeated in the runoff by Ted Cruz (for US Senate) This year, he was man defeated by Dan Patrick in a runoff (for Lt. Governor).
Will read these comments with great comments.
Thanks for the enlightening post. And the mountains of evidence you provided. And, of course, the cogent argument. Well done. Edifying.
100% Do enlighten and provide evidence. Otherwise, retract.
Anyone who disagrees with the dominant opinion in a thread is called a leftist or a troll. I'm not here as regularly as some. But please, provide all of us with evidence that folks are paid to stir the pot. I might have missed the evidence previously. So please provide it for those of us who are not regulars. Thank you. Enjoy your evening.
Carlos, You don't get it. Last election .. 2012 ... 78 women were elected to the US House. 58 D - 20 R. As of last election, 20 women were in the U.S. Senate, 16 D- 4 R. Same advantage in state legislatures. Check the web site of Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP). To continue, if you look at voting .... beginning in 1980, more women than men voted Democratic. If you look at partisanship, more women identify with the Dems. The question to you: Why? At the level of individuals, at the state legislatures, at the US House, and at the US Senate. Was this all an accident? Your thoughts?
How the hell can you be within the margin of error and skewed to one side? Did I miss something? The margin of error is centered around the estimate of the mean, no? It is +/- around that mean, right? A function of the variance and the n? Correct? Do please explain how an estimate can be within the margin of error (a measure of central tendency) and yet be skewed? Are you speaking of the overall distribution? Please clarify?
Good, so you know probability theory, sampling, Central Limit Theorem, response rates, and other nuances of polling? Distributions? Bayesian? Is that correct? Since when is recommending a book a snarky? If you tell a student or others to find a book on the basics, are you considered snarky? Or just thin-skinned? Bless you. Enjoy your evening.
Previous 21 - 30 Next