Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ ylojceq

In article ,
Jim Smith wrote:

Damn. I was thinking of buying something from Yellow Jersey, now there
is no way I can and still sleep at night. Glad I found out sooner than
later though.

I would hope that you aren't serious about that. A number of people
involved in political discussions here own businesses, including me. I
think that we all would like to participate without being punished for
our views. Andy's a good guy. Mark Hickey, too. I don't always agree
with them, but that's what America is all about isn't it?

Andy's store is not a front for the RNC. He is just expressing himself.
I would hate if Andy, Mark, I, or any of the other business owners here
felt compelled to be silent.

Todd Kuzma
Heron Bicycles
Tullio's Big Dog Cyclery

Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
"Fiona Reynolds" writes:

It is over twit, moron, idiot, brain dead zombie.

YOU and the stupid Democrats LOST

Lots of people lost, actually- about 80% of America came out on
thelosing end of the election although many of them haven't figured it
out. Heck, 19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of income.

Here's a question for someone with a statistics background:

Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of
the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the
probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from
the value predicted by the sample?

JP

Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
"Fiona Reynolds" writes:

It is over twit, moron, idiot, brain dead zombie.

YOU and the stupid Democrats LOST

Lots of people lost, actually- about 80% of America came out on
thelosing end of the election although many of them haven't figured it
out. Heck, 19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of income.

Here's a question for someone with a statistics background:

Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of
the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the
probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from
the value predicted by the sample?

JP

Tom Sherman wrote:


Or maybe both the candidates with a chance of winning did nothing to
inspire people to vote.

What is wrong with your brain?

Sure they did things to inspire people to vote. That's why percentages were
up. The fact that some insipration was more 'against' the other guy more than
'for' another is irrelevent.

Tom Sherman wrote:


Or maybe both the candidates with a chance of winning did nothing to
inspire people to vote.

What is wrong with your brain?

Sure they did things to inspire people to vote. That's why percentages were
up. The fact that some insipration was more 'against' the other guy more than
'for' another is irrelevent.

remove the polite word to reply wrote:

The disenfranchised here must not even be voting,

I'd suggest that this thread does contain one true statement, at least.

remove the polite word to reply wrote:

The disenfranchised here must not even be voting,

I'd suggest that this thread does contain one true statement, at least.

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
...
Don't be stupid.

Here is voter turnout data for representative democracies in Europe.
Except for Switzerland, all are well ahead of the US in voter turnout.
http://www.idea.int/publications/voter_turnout_weurope/part%20II%20(78-93).pdf.

--
Tom Sherman

Wow! That's a new record! I usually have to say a lot more before I'm
called "stupid". Your comment "Many recent elections in other countries
have had voter turnouts of better than 90%, which puts the ~59% of the 2004
US election to shame." implies a direct relationship between "betterness"
and voter turnout. That's how I read it.

You certainly know more than I do in that area (no sarcasm intended). I see
from your document that Austria, for example, is way up there. I have no
idea what the issues and candidates are and have been. Maybe most people
see major shifts in government policy that will affect them directly and
that motivates them to vote. Conversely, maybe U.S. voters saw it as six of
one, a half dozen of the other. Maybe Austria's history is a motivator.
Why is Switzerland lower than the U.S.? I just don't have enough
information to judge the shamefulness of a ~59% turnout.

I also noticed that the document you refer to shows the percentage of
"registered" voters who actually voted. According to

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf

the percentage of "registered" voters in the U.S. who actually voted in the
2000 election is about 85%. I couldn't find a figure for this election. In
order to make a more valid comparison, we need the number of eligible voters
from those European countries who actually vote. I saw that was referred to
as VAP in your document, but I couldn't find any figures.

Regardless, I appreciate each and every person who didn't vote who could
have - it makes my vote worth that much more.

Chuck Davis

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
...
Don't be stupid.

Here is voter turnout data for representative democracies in Europe.
Except for Switzerland, all are well ahead of the US in voter turnout.
http://www.idea.int/publications/voter_turnout_weurope/part%20II%20(78-93).pdf.

--
Tom Sherman

Wow! That's a new record! I usually have to say a lot more before I'm
called "stupid". Your comment "Many recent elections in other countries
have had voter turnouts of better than 90%, which puts the ~59% of the 2004
US election to shame." implies a direct relationship between "betterness"
and voter turnout. That's how I read it.

You certainly know more than I do in that area (no sarcasm intended). I see
from your document that Austria, for example, is way up there. I have no
idea what the issues and candidates are and have been. Maybe most people
see major shifts in government policy that will affect them directly and
that motivates them to vote. Conversely, maybe U.S. voters saw it as six of
one, a half dozen of the other. Maybe Austria's history is a motivator.
Why is Switzerland lower than the U.S.? I just don't have enough
information to judge the shamefulness of a ~59% turnout.

I also noticed that the document you refer to shows the percentage of
"registered" voters who actually voted. According to

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf

the percentage of "registered" voters in the U.S. who actually voted in the
2000 election is about 85%. I couldn't find a figure for this election. In
order to make a more valid comparison, we need the number of eligible voters
from those European countries who actually vote. I saw that was referred to
as VAP in your document, but I couldn't find any figures.

Regardless, I appreciate each and every person who didn't vote who could
have - it makes my vote worth that much more.

Chuck Davis

In article ,
says...
Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
"Fiona Reynolds" writes:

It is over twit, moron, idiot, brain dead zombie.

YOU and the stupid Democrats LOST

Lots of people lost, actually- about 80% of America came out on
thelosing end of the election although many of them haven't figured it
out. Heck, 19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of income.

Here's a question for someone with a statistics background:

Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of
the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the
probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from
the value predicted by the sample?

I believe it's about 1%.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).