On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:33:13 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:45:29 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 06:57:43 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to cough up
the marriage data so that it can be compared to the divorce data.

No one had asked previously.


I asked several times.

No, you asked about the divorce rate.


Play semantics all you want -- I said that half of all marriages end
up in divorce and you coughed up your statistic. Now you have to
explain how your statistic relates to my statement.


But since you have now, the percentage of
married people (Which included both spouse present and absent) is
about 53.5% from the same spreadsheet that you can't seem to read and
gather information from.


Excellent. Now, from that same spreadsheet, how many of those people
that are married have been previously married? And how many times?

Repeat marriages are not accounted for. So what? It is irrelevant.


No, it is -very- irrelevant. To prove (or disprove) that half of all
marriages end up in divorce then you must know how many marriages and
divorces occur in a given amount of time. You can't determine that
information from the static data you sourced from the Census bureau.
The data I provided was accurate, relevant, and, according to the
source of -your- data, came from -the- authoritative source on the
subject. My statement was correct.


Care to help Social Security?

The best way to help it is to remove it, and divert all former SS
withholdings into individual 401K accounts. Of course that penalizes
those who have already given into the SS program for their entire
working lives. So the transition has to be gradual so to be fair to
everyone.


So your solution is to simply eliminate Social Security? Hey, neat
idea, but you can't "divert" what you don't have, and the Reps have
tapped the SS trust fund so deep that there isn't anything to
"divert".

Care to substantiate that statement with some hard facts?


Like the way -you- back up -your- statements with hard facts? Sure....
It's true because I say it's true.

In other words, you don't have any. Just another regurgitated
"factoid" written by another skilled left wing propagandist.


If you assume that the annual Federal Budget Reports from both
Congress and the White House are written by skilled left wing
propagandists then I suppose you are correct.


The federal budget reports claimed that "republicans tapped social
security"?


Not in those exact words -- you need to have enough brains to figure
out that when the SS trust fund gets tapped for spending on Republican
bills during Republican administrations, it's usually done by the
Republicans.


Bush's solution to SS is a "credit-card" retirement plan,
which isn't any better. Maybe you two should get together and figure
out what "promote the general Welfare" means.

America was never meant to be a "Welfare state", despite the
objections of liberals who would socialize every program and service,
at the expense of the people who actually earn money.


If you could quote any liberal who said that America should be a
"welfare state" I might agree.

They refer to it by different names.


Which is something the conservatives -never- do, I'm sure.

Irrelevant. It doesn't change the truth of my statement.


Nope, it sure doesn't. You can call it "global warming" or "climate
change", the "estate tax" or the "death tax", an "enemy combatant" or
a "prisoner of war"..... it's all the same difference. So what liberal
has stated that America should become a "welfare state" by that or any
other name?


Names like "living wage", "fair
share", "universal care". But it basically means the same thing.
Taking money from people who earn it, to give to people who don't.


LOL..... I think I'll let that statement stand on it's own 'merits'!

Yea, the truth. But you wisely chose not to comment on it as the only
thing you could do is defend the practices. That's sort of like
defending the IRS. Not a very popular position to be in.


First of all, what you refer to as a "living wage" is mighty important
to millions of voters who don't make a "living wage", mostly due to
irresponsible Republican economic plans (not to forget that 40% of
wage-earners don't make enough money to pay income taxes and therefore
didn't get Bush's 'tax rebate' that turned out to be nothing more than
a loan).

Second, "fair share" is in reference to fat-cats and corporations who
skip out of paying taxes through shelters, subsidies and a variety of
other carefully legislated loopholes.

And "universal care" is a simple concept that provides basic health
care service for anyone whether they can afford it or not -- more
specifically, the programs are targeted towards children whose parents
work two or three of Bush's new jobs and still can't pay the rent, let
alone health insurance for their children. It's also targeted towards
the increasing senior population who will be SOL when the SS trust
fund dries up in a few years (and after Bush shuts down drug imports
from Canada).

Care to make any more assinine comments about those subjects?


What part of 9.6% of the total population is divorced do YOU not
understand?


What percent of people are married, Dave?

See above. And before you jump the gun and say "Aha! if 53.4% of
people are married, that means that 46.4% are divorced, that's almost
half!", you need to consider that an additional 6.2% are widowed, 2.1%
are separated, and 28.6% have never been married.

It's all there in the spreadsheet. Don't tell me you too have webTV
and can't read a simple spreadsheet?


I can read it just fine. Now it's -your- turn to read it: Notice that
the total for each row is 100%. So how many people are counted in two
or more categories?

None if you add all the numbers together to get that 100%. Although I
would tend to think that there should be no difference between
"married spouse absent" and "separated". Although the former category
could refer to things like military deployment for long term. But
then, I'm guessing at that point.


Yep, you sure do a lot of guessing. I'll agree with that.


"In a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal.
You need a reason to make something illegal."

-- Donna Moss, "West Wing"

And you accuse ME of watching too much TV?


You do, and that's why I used the quote.

Yea, I'll bet. I've never even seen "West Wing", but it doesn't
surprise me that you have.


You bet I do! It's a lot better than most of the other crap that's
pushed onto the public as 'entertainment'.

That figures. West wing is very liberally slanted so I've been told.


Of course you believe everything you're told as long as you're told
it's liberally slanted.


I prefer "24". The most intense show on TV.


yawn. If I want to watch a shoot-em-up-bang-bang show with bad dialog,
shallow characters and weak plots I'll watch reruns of Rawhide.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----