billvon 3,058
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
billvon 3,058
>Sounds like you are buying into the men are stupid mentality.
Not at all! Just some men. Some men (and some women) are stupid. If you rely on your emotions and sex drives, you often end up making bad decisions - no matter what your sex.
>Oh no he said "bring it on", I hope they don't get made.
Yeah, don't you hate those whiny schoolgirls who cry when their hubands, brothers or fathers are killed in action? Thank god we have a president who is strong enough to ignore their pathetic whines, and instead support Halliburton in their noble drive for american profits.
A president who brings peace to a conflict (or even has a good plan for doing so) will get my vote any day over one who just wants to blow up people who piss him off. The former results in fewer dead US soldiers and fewer dead civilians, and that's a good thing no matter how you look at it.
Not at all! Just some men. Some men (and some women) are stupid. If you rely on your emotions and sex drives, you often end up making bad decisions - no matter what your sex.
>Oh no he said "bring it on", I hope they don't get made.
Yeah, don't you hate those whiny schoolgirls who cry when their hubands, brothers or fathers are killed in action? Thank god we have a president who is strong enough to ignore their pathetic whines, and instead support Halliburton in their noble drive for american profits.
A president who brings peace to a conflict (or even has a good plan for doing so) will get my vote any day over one who just wants to blow up people who piss him off. The former results in fewer dead US soldiers and fewer dead civilians, and that's a good thing no matter how you look at it.
kallend 2,099
Quote>What difference did any voter in Delaware make to the outcome of
> any recent presidential election? None, because regardless of which
> way the state went, it would not have changed anything because
> their delegation is so small.
False analogy. If you were given one electoral vote, rather than being a vanishingly small part of the overall US presidential vote, you would be lobbied like no one has ever been lobbied before - because you could control that one electoral vote more than anyone else could control theirs, and thus you would have more power to change the outcome than any other US citizen.
It is a given that in a landslide election a single contrary vote doesn't matter. However, if your state is close, you will more likely affect the electoral vote outcome if you live in a small state than in a large one. Not because you will change a large number of electoral votes, but because the effect of a single vote iin a small state is that much greater. If electoral votes were proportional to population, that would even out. Since small states get a "handicap" of three extra votes no matter how small they are, that gives the voter in a small state an advantage.
Taken over all possible outcomes (which is what a probability does for you) the number of times Delaware's delegation is inconsequential is greater than the number of times California's is inconsequential. I haven't done the calculations myself, but those that have reach the conclusion that overall this effect outweighs the difference in voters per EC delegate.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
AdD 1
So Canada is a socialist country now are we? Well comrades, at least next time we forget to PLF and break something we don't have to worry about whether our health insurance policy covers skydiving or not.
Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream
billvon 3,058
>Taken over all possible outcomes (which is what a probability does
> for you) the number of times Delaware's delegation is
> inconsequential is greater than the number of times California's is
> inconsequential.
Correct. And if a person in each state had an equal chance of changing that state's vote, CA would win hands-down. If California and Delaware had an equal number of electoral votes, the Delaware voter would have far, far more influence than the California voter - it takes 43 Californians to have the same effect as 1 Delawarian (Delawarite? Delawod?) If they had a proportional number of electoral votes, their power would be the same.
However, Delaware has a disproportionate number of electoral votes because each state is guaranteed at least 3. Therefore an individual Delaware vote can do more to change the electoral outcome than a single California vote.
It's sorta like playing the lottery. A guy who bets $20 on a $100 jackpot at 5:1 odds is going to come out ahead (over the long run) than a guy who puts $1 into a $10 million lottery with 20 million to 1 odds. Sure, the guy who puts in $1 is going to make much better news if he wins, but the odds are that, over time, the guy who plays the $100 game is going to end up with more money. Even though the payout is a lot less.
> for you) the number of times Delaware's delegation is
> inconsequential is greater than the number of times California's is
> inconsequential.
Correct. And if a person in each state had an equal chance of changing that state's vote, CA would win hands-down. If California and Delaware had an equal number of electoral votes, the Delaware voter would have far, far more influence than the California voter - it takes 43 Californians to have the same effect as 1 Delawarian (Delawarite? Delawod?) If they had a proportional number of electoral votes, their power would be the same.
However, Delaware has a disproportionate number of electoral votes because each state is guaranteed at least 3. Therefore an individual Delaware vote can do more to change the electoral outcome than a single California vote.
It's sorta like playing the lottery. A guy who bets $20 on a $100 jackpot at 5:1 odds is going to come out ahead (over the long run) than a guy who puts $1 into a $10 million lottery with 20 million to 1 odds. Sure, the guy who puts in $1 is going to make much better news if he wins, but the odds are that, over time, the guy who plays the $100 game is going to end up with more money. Even though the payout is a lot less.
SkyDekker 1,465
This is a full blown heavy weight bout 
:
In one corner we have Bill von, in the opposite corner we have Professor kallend.
Who can deliver the knock out punch??
Stay tuned for further action........
:
In one corner we have Bill von, in the opposite corner we have Professor kallend.
Who can deliver the knock out punch??
Stay tuned for further action........
kallend 2,099
Quote>Taken over all possible outcomes (which is what a probability does
> for you) the number of times Delaware's delegation is
> inconsequential is greater than the number of times California's is
> inconsequential.
Correct. And if a person in each state had an equal chance of changing that state's vote, CA would win hands-down. If California and Delaware had an equal number of electoral votes, the Delaware voter would have far, far more influence than the California voter - it takes 43 Californians to have the same effect as 1 Delawarian (Delawarite? Delawod?) If they had a proportional number of electoral votes, their power would be the same.
However, Delaware has a disproportionate number of electoral votes because each state is guaranteed at least 3. Therefore an individual Delaware vote can do more to change the electoral outcome than a single California vote.
It's sorta like playing the lottery. A guy who bets $20 on a $100 jackpot at 5:1 odds is going to come out ahead (over the long run) than a guy who puts $1 into a $10 million lottery with 20 million to 1 odds. Sure, the guy who puts in $1 is going to make much better news if he wins, but the odds are that, over time, the guy who plays the $100 game is going to end up with more money. Even though the payout is a lot less.
Not according to the Banzhaf analysis. As I said, I have not run the numbers for myself, but I see no error in Banzhaf's methodology. You can also read about it in Paulos's book on Innumeracy.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Tonto 1
159 votes,
and stable on 39% for and 61% against.
t
and stable on 39% for and 61% against.
t
It's the year of the Pig.
QuoteSo Canada is a socialist country now are we?
Yes you are... I didn't really think there was a debate in that statement. But hey, you live there I figured you would have know that.
QuoteWell comrades, at least next time we forget to PLF and break something we don't have to worry about whether our health insurance policy covers skydiving or not.
Actually, you are wrong. You do have to pay for it, as do all the other Canadian people. So, if you are accident prone you are lucky because everyone elses taxes help pay for your problems. If you very rarely get hurt, you are screwed, because your hard earned money is going to help those stupid people that for get to PLF.
So, Let's say this Moron wants to die. He drives himself into a wall at 100Kph. But he survives the accident and is in a Coma for 20 years etc... Why should your tax money have to pay for his stupidity?
Now, I am not saying that doesn't go on here in the USA, but, the healthcare is privatized, and the patient is at least partly financially responsible for his own stupidity.
It seems crazy to me that I should pay for part of everyone's healthcare in the entire country. But hey I am a "small government" type of guy. Maybe you feel you need the government to support you.
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
Tonto 1
Quote
It seems crazy to me that I should pay for part of everyone's healthcare in the entire country. But hey I am a "small government" type of guy. Maybe you feel you need the government to support you.
But when the dude's family sues the wall he drove into and those who stupidly built it there - you don't mind paying part of the insurance payout, right?
You're a funny guy.
t
It's the year of the Pig.
Quote
It seems crazy to me that I should pay for part of everyone's healthcare in the entire country. But hey I am a "small government" type of guy. Maybe you feel you need the government to support you.
Chris
You don't pay for everyone's health care in the entire country, but you sure as heck pay for some other people's healthcare, as they also pay for yours... Don't you have insurance? What if you broke every bone in your body? The $4000 you've payed to insurance since you finished college surely wouldn't cover those bills... it's all the people giving money to the insurance company that enable the system to work the way it does! Seems a little like Canada, eh?
Did you actually think that through?
No it doesn't seem like canada, because it is privatized ... Hence ... CAPITALISM.
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
Actually, if you search you will fid many threads or debates I have been in arguing against frivolous lawsuits and against paying for illeagals medical bills.
I will do a search and post the results here so you can read those threads too.
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
I will do a search and post the results here so you can read those threads too.
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
Tonto 1
Deed yew fid miny illeagals hoo kin spel?
t
t
It's the year of the Pig.
Seems a little like Canada, eh?
No. Big difference between the government and the private sector.
never pull low......unless you are
QuoteDeed yew fid miny illeagals hoo kin spel?
t
Your liberalism is showing.
never pull low......unless you are
Tonto 1
Quote
Your liberalism is showing.
You say that as though it's a bad thing!
t
It's the year of the Pig.
Amazon 7
Tonto.. in the NEW America.. anything left of Musolini is liberal.... Please get this traight.. Unless you are in the Ultra Conservative Right Hand.... you are a leftist liberal commie pinko .
Please update your terminology accordingly
Please update your terminology accordingly
wmw999 2,514
QuoteUnless you are in the Ultra Conservative Right Hand.... you are a leftist liberal commie pinko
Ahem. That's Ms leftist liberal commie pinko!
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
b1jercat 0
To answer the poll, not just no, but hell no. Its funny nobody has brought up brother Neil who by the way screwed investors to the tune of a billion dollars, I guess theifven/liars just runs in the family.
blues
jerry
blues
jerry
wmw999 2,514
A friend of mine grew up friends with most of the Bush family; he said that, Florida notwithstanding, Jeb is a seriously nice guy.
Wendy W.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
jfields 0
Understood, Wendy. There are lots of nice people in the world doing jobs they really shouldn't. It is just them in the context of their jobs that makes things go sour.
Please get this traight..
I guess that the republicans aren't the only ones that can't spell. Welcome to the Dan Quale club.
never pull low......unless you are
> any recent presidential election? None, because regardless of which
> way the state went, it would not have changed anything because
> their delegation is so small.
False analogy. If you were given one electoral vote, rather than being a vanishingly small part of the overall US presidential vote, you would be lobbied like no one has ever been lobbied before - because you could control that one electoral vote more than anyone else could control theirs, and thus you would have more power to change the outcome than any other US citizen.
It is a given that in a landslide election a single contrary vote doesn't matter. However, if your state is close, you will more likely affect the electoral vote outcome if you live in a small state than in a large one. Not because you will change a large number of electoral votes, but because the effect of a single vote iin a small state is that much greater. If electoral votes were proportional to population, that would even out. Since small states get a "handicap" of three extra votes no matter how small they are, that gives the voter in a small state an advantage.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites