(OT) "TEXAS UNDER BUSH"

• TEXAS UNDER BUSH *

The state of Texas, under the 'leadership' of Governor George W. Bush, is ranked:

50th in spending for teachers' salaries 49th in spending on the environment 48th in per-capita funding for public health 47th in delivery of social services 42nd in child-support collections 41st in per-capita spending on public education

and ...

5th in percentage of population living in poverty 1st in air and water pollution 1st in percentage of poor working parents without insurance 1st in percentage of children without health insurance 1st in executions (avg. 1 every 2 weeks for Bush's 5 years)

Just think of what he could do for (or TO) the country if he were president.

Your stats mean nothing without:

1) sources (Without these, they can just as easily be lies,
    such as the infamous Ken Starr "quote" that turned out
    to be a complete fabrication.)

2) qualifiers for the data, such as "per-capita," "median," etc.
    (These are *always* needed -- not just every now and then.
    Without a qualifier, the stat means little.)

3) comparative data for the pre-G.W. years of Texas
    (If Texas had been 1st in ____ for the last 50 years, you
    can't really blame G.W. for Texas still being 1st in ____.)

As your post stands, a reasoning person can only state for sure that either your aim is to twist statistics to your advantage or that you are just ignorantly reposting something that some- one else forwarded you. Or both.

p.s. I am *no* fan of G.W. Or most Republicans. Or most Democrats. There are better ways to attack G.W. and Republicans (or Democrats). Posting in alt.tv.southpark is perhaps one of the worst ways.

"BatMan2000" wrote in message news:[email]...

president.

Both Bush and Gore have their downsides.

Bush - executions Gore - making up stories about heroic feats he did, lying that the democrats created our economy (the president has no control over the economy, its a common myth and every economics textbook tells you that)

But then they have their good sides.

Bush - voucher system Gore - better for the environment (although global warming is a lie... the warming is caused by a sun cycle (not a sunspot cycle) - the last time this occured was in the American Revolution), better for working class

I guess both parties are imperfect. The perfect party for me would have all the family values, religion, nationalism, and be pro-life like the Republicans but have the Democrats' idea of providing for the people and not judging on race, age, religion or sex.

This is utter bullshit. The vast majority of scientists -- AKA the ones NOT employed by the petrochemical industries -- all agree that deforestation and increased greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere.

In article , "D.G. Porter" writes:

Just the ones who know nothing about meteorology and climate.

In article , "core_dump" writes:

This isn't a Bad Thing at all.

Can you please cite what AlBore, the oil tycoon, has done for the environment.

First, everything Dubbya claims "he" did for education was started by Ann Richards.

Second, Bush is "The dumbest thing on two legs." That opinion on Old Dumb-as-a-Stump comes from one of his former grade school teachers.

In article , [email] (BatMan2000) blindly regurgitated some Democrat porpoganda and added:

Looks like you're the idiot to me.