Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The elderly
Topic Started: Nov 5 2008, 11:42 PM (406 Views)
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
somerled
Nov 6 2008, 01:11 AM
RTW
Nov 6 2008, 01:07 AM
Dandandat
Nov 5 2008, 11:58 PM
Dr. Noah
Nov 5 2008, 11:55 PM
Looks like a fairly even split to me.
I see

53% to 45% is an even split

but 52% to 47% is a clear mandate.
:rotfl:

Dandandat, you are hearby instructed to report to the nearest math re-education camp immediately!
Go back and read S L O W L Y so you will comprehend what I said and go and learn something about statistics , in particular W E I G H T E D - A V E R A G E S rather than airing your lack of understanding and distinct lack of knowledge .

And for the record , to avoid further confusion for mathematically challenged , the 65+ group represent only 16% of those who voted.
:doh:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Dandandat
Nov 6 2008, 01:15 AM
somerled
Nov 6 2008, 01:08 AM
Dandandat
Nov 6 2008, 01:06 AM
somerled
Nov 6 2008, 01:03 AM
Um ; someone who is in the group 50 - 69 no longer considers themself elderly , not when people are active and healthy now often into their mid 80s when "elderlyness" sets in and people hit the brick wall and start to keal over.

30 to 40 years ago people in their 50s were just about knackered and were elderly , not now.
Ok, thank you for agreeing with me.
What about specifically ?
:doh:
Dandandat,

Clearly you don't understand the importance of the calc wav when determining the difference between 50+ and 65+ ... BUT DO NOT FEAR as that will all be covered in the math re-education camp.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
RTW
Nov 6 2008, 01:23 AM
Dandandat
Nov 6 2008, 01:15 AM
somerled
Nov 6 2008, 01:08 AM
Dandandat
Nov 6 2008, 01:06 AM
somerled
Nov 6 2008, 01:03 AM
Um ; someone who is in the group 50 - 69 no longer considers themself elderly , not when people are active and healthy now often into their mid 80s when "elderlyness" sets in and people hit the brick wall and start to keal over.

30 to 40 years ago people in their 50s were just about knackered and were elderly , not now.
Ok, thank you for agreeing with me.
What about specifically ?
:doh:
Dandandat,

Clearly you don't understand the importance of the calc wav when determining the difference between 50+ and 65+ ... BUT DO NOT FEAR as that will all be covered in the math re-education camp.
Is that where you learn that 2+2=3 unless it otherwise equals 5?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Dwayne
Nov 6 2008, 01:24 AM
RTW
Nov 6 2008, 01:23 AM
Dandandat
Nov 6 2008, 01:15 AM
somerled
Nov 6 2008, 01:08 AM
Dandandat
Nov 6 2008, 01:06 AM
somerled
Nov 6 2008, 01:03 AM
Um ; someone who is in the group 50 - 69 no longer considers themself elderly , not when people are active and healthy now often into their mid 80s when "elderlyness" sets in and people hit the brick wall and start to keal over.

30 to 40 years ago people in their 50s were just about knackered and were elderly , not now.
Ok, thank you for agreeing with me.
What about specifically ?
:doh:
Dandandat,

Clearly you don't understand the importance of the calc wav when determining the difference between 50+ and 65+ ... BUT DO NOT FEAR as that will all be covered in the math re-education camp.
Is that where you learn that 2+2=3 unless it otherwise equals 5?
No , see my comment to RTW .

No longer blocked to you now eh .... ? thought you might be missing some interesting stuff eh :rotfl: .

When you've something pertanent to say , or even remotely valid .... call again , til then :ZZZZZ:
Edited by somerled, Nov 6 2008, 01:33 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
The mandate I was referring to in another thread is in reference to the electoral votes which was twice that of McCain's and the number of seats gained by the Democratic party which has nothing to do with this discussion here.

I would appreciate it if arguments from other threads were not dragged into others as to further confuse the issue.

As I recall, Bush supporters thought that 51% to 49% was a clear mandate in 2000 and 2004.

But as to the issue we are discussing in this thread if we can remain on topic for just a bit longer before the personal insults fly further, 53% to 45% does not give a clear definition of that demographic supporting or not.

Let's try to get past the hate Dan.
Edited by Dr. Noah, Nov 6 2008, 07:05 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Megan McArdle said it best I think, and her being an Obama supporter, it would probably be wise for dems to heed her observations...
Quote:
 
Note to Democrats

If the country is so progressive, how come Bush won the popular vote four years ago? Did all the center right people die? Or are American voters somewhat mercurial? Also, how come Bush had no mandate four years ago? Did the American voter get more mandative? Would John McCain have had a mandate if he'd achieved these kinds of numbers? Or would that be entirely different?

No need to answer. The rest of us already know what the answer is.

I am struck by the memory of a seething Democrat four years ago, watching Republicans gloat about their "permanent majority": "They don't bother me. All their gloating will just make their tears sweeter when they finally lose." I'd be more worried about the permanent majority if I hadn't just checked the Democrats' congressional approval ratings. If they don't pick up soon--and now there are no Republicans to blame for anything that goes wrong--I estimate the life of this mandate at about three months.

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/note_to_democrats.php


The part I believe dems need to take from this is this, "I'd be more worried about the permanent majority if I hadn't just checked the Democrats' congressional approval ratings. If they don't pick up soon--and now there are no Republicans to blame for anything that goes wrong--I estimate the life of this mandate at about three months."
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Dr. Noah
Nov 6 2008, 06:46 AM
The mandate I was referring to in another thread is in reference to the electoral votes which was twice that of McCain's and the number of seats gained by the Democratic party which has nothing to do with this discussion here.



I see; so now you are arguing the importance of the electoral college when before you where disparaging it.

Quote:
 
As I recall, Bush supporters thought that 51% to 49% was a clear mandate in 2000 and 2004.


Yes they did, and I equally recall Bush retracters saying that it was not a mandate. Its quite clear that both sides chose to see what they want, rather then what is reality.

Quote:
 
But as to the issue we are discussing in this thread if we can remain on topic for just a bit longer before the personal insults fly further, 53% to 45% does not give a clear definition of that demographic supporting or not.


Than I can only assume that 52% to 47% does not give a clear definition of that the country supports Obama for president.


Quote:
 

Let's try to get past the hate Dan.


I don't hate you Dr. Noah; I can't see where my arguments would be misconstrued as hate. But since you have misinterpreted them in that fashion I clearly apologize for that. I would like to ask so that I do not in the future leave my self open for misunderstanding; where do you interpret hate from my argument?


You see Dr. Noah I have no amended to down play the victory of President-elect Obama and embrace him as "my" president with open arms, willing to give him time to prove to me that my doubts about him are misplaced. However I am not above allowing inconsistency and double standards to muddle interesting political debate. What I don't understand that while even in victory you can not do the same.
Edited by Dandandat, Nov 6 2008, 09:08 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
Nov 6 2008, 12:15 AM
Dandandat
Nov 6 2008, 12:04 AM
somerled
Nov 6 2008, 12:03 AM
Or fixed in their ways and a lot of them still in Cold War Mode.
Not according to Obama, and since the cold war never came up as a campaign issue, I’m not quite sure what you mean.
No , not that I have heard (doesn't mean it wasn't invoked) - just by essence of McCains military past - the Viet Nam was a hot part of the Cold War was it not - McCains military past was pushed ad nausium like it was relevant to now , so there is a connection that lot of people would likely have made), and people on your side have also used the word socialism like it is something bad ad nausium and continue to do so (and a lot of your side do not the difference between communism and socialism or that matter fascism even seen this in other threads here at Sistertrek.
Oh please...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
Nov 6 2008, 12:21 AM
Dandandat
Nov 5 2008, 11:53 PM
somerled
Nov 5 2008, 11:49 PM
Did they ? I heard they went the other way and wound up very close for the 65s and overs as a lot of them rely on their investments which have been damaged and even become worthless under Bush's watch.

http://abcnews.go.com/pollingunit/exitpolls

Did you look at your link

Over 65

Obama: 45%
McCain: 53%
Oops my mistake , weight averages are actually :

50+ 48.49056604% went to Obama.
50+ 50.20754717% went to McCain.

Still bugger all in it for the 50+ age group in any realistic sense.

here's the calc wav = sum (fractionx%)/sum(fraction).


Um, seniors are over 65 in this country.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
Nov 6 2008, 12:42 AM
Dandandat
Nov 6 2008, 12:30 AM
somerled
Nov 6 2008, 12:21 AM
Dandandat
Nov 5 2008, 11:53 PM
somerled
Nov 5 2008, 11:49 PM
Did they ? I heard they went the other way and wound up very close for the 65s and overs as a lot of them rely on their investments which have been damaged and even become worthless under Bush's watch.

http://abcnews.go.com/pollingunit/exitpolls

Did you look at your link

Over 65

Obama: 45%
McCain: 53%
Oops my mistake , weight averages are actually :

50+ 49.62790698% went to Obama.
50+ 51.11627907% went to McCain.

Still bugger all in it for the 50+ age group in any realistic sense.

here's the calc wav = sum (fractionx%)/sum(fraction).


50 to 65 and 65+ are a very different category. 50 to 65 is middle age not elderly, clearly not the group Ann Nixon Cooper belongs too.
I know a lot of 50+s who are retired and have similar outlooks as the 65+s , heck my big sister is 62 yo (also retired) , I am seriously considering ditching work soon (I am 51 yo , and my elder brother retired at 52 yo about 8 years ago) , I personally know lots of retired 50+s who have very similar views of the world as the 65+ group.

Also met a lot of people who are 50+ and 65+ in my grey nomad outback safari , a lot of the see life like I do hence - early retirements (enforced sometimes , voluntary sometimes). Very common here - why keep working if you don't need or want to and can afford to opt out.

So I believe you are over generalising.
Actually, reading your comment it appears you are the one who is overgeneralizing. :headscratch:

Seniors in the United States are over 65. 50 is barely middle age here.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Dr. Noah
Nov 6 2008, 06:46 AM
The mandate I was referring to in another thread is in reference to the electoral votes which was twice that of McCain's and the number of seats gained by the Democratic party which has nothing to do with this discussion here.

I would appreciate it if arguments from other threads were not dragged into others as to further confuse the issue.

As I recall, Bush supporters thought that 51% to 49% was a clear mandate in 2000 and 2004.

But as to the issue we are discussing in this thread if we can remain on topic for just a bit longer before the personal insults fly further, 53% to 45% does not give a clear definition of that demographic supporting or not.

Let's try to get past the hate Dan.
Really? Getting past the hate? I seem to remember you in 2004 getting scolded for using terms like "Resident" for President Bush. I also remember comments of "he's not my president."

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
Nov 6 2008, 12:03 AM
Dr. Noah
Nov 5 2008, 11:51 PM
I think that's an overgeneralization Dan. There are several elderly people I know who support Obama.
Or fixed in their ways and a lot of them still in Cold War Mode - watch out for those commies under the bed folks .
I'm going to report this one, seeing as we know where it was aimed.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
fireh8er
Member Avatar
I'm Captain Kirk!
Moderator Comment

Somerled,

I need you to dial it back a bit and keep your personal remarks out of this dicussion.

End of The Moderator
Edited by fireh8er, Nov 6 2008, 11:35 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Dr. Noah
Nov 6 2008, 06:46 AM
As I recall, Bush supporters thought that 51% to 49% was a clear mandate in 2000 and 2004.
:no:
Are you revising history to support your current agenda?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus