CA Senator Corruption...don't you just love politicians!

[Tulemutt]

Yet you're ignoring the other stats such as California having 20x the amount of convicted politicians of Rhode Island, yet receiving a "less corrupt" rating, despite having a smaller state assembly.

This exchange is just too funny. I need to resist better. But, you say the absolutely stupidest things over and over again.

You ignore that 20x more convictions is still WAY less than 38x the size difference between the two states. That said, I think you should consider moving to R.I. since it appeals to you so much.

You really need to stop this and keep your counseling appointments.

By the way, the "pasted" report hasn't been from the CPI - um, ever. As I pointed out, it is from the NY Times.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

You ignore that 20x more convictions is still WAY less than 38x the size difference between the two states. That said, I think you should consider moving to R.I. since it appeals to you so much.

Is there are 38x size difference between the two state assemblies and public officials?

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

By the way, the "pasted" report hasn't been from the CPI - um, ever. As I pointed out, it is from the NY Times.

Umm...

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

People who agree with Tulemutt's position:
U.S. Department of Justice
The Center for Public Integrity Grading the nation: How accountable is your state? | Center for Public Integrity
The Washington Post The most corrupt state(s) in America
24/7 Wall St. America

All cite the same CPI study.

Unless you're talking about this article by the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/we...arsh.html?_r=0

... which ALSO makes no conclusion about which state is more or less corrupt. It only presents 3 possible different ways to look at it (total convictions, per capita, journalist survey). The author Bill Marsh makes ZERO claims about which measure is the best, or which states are the most corrupt like you're attempting to do. He even points out the SAME point I'm making about how per capita measurements bias and skew less corrupt for states with bigger populations.

[Tulemutt]

The CHART. The chart. The CHART. In every link, the CHART is from the NY Times. The NY Times CREATED the chart that all the studies and articles include. The NY Times created the CHART out of DoJ and Census statistics. How many times does this need to be put in front of your eyes? Look at the bottom of the CHART. It says who created it and what the sources were for the information used. Hilarious!

No one NEEDS to make any statement about which state is more corrupt. The CHART makes the statement. It is irrefutable. Unmistakable.

Except to you.

Well, when you fail to make a single point - when you fail to respond to a single question or clarification - you can always resort to childish taunts and insults to try and save the day. I do understand how tempting that can be sometimes. Nonetheless, you enjoy Rhode Island now, hear? Bon Voyagie, as Bugs Bunny always says.

[ExeterMedia]

Heck, I just noticed this. Tulemutt's sources actually clash against each other.

According to the CPI State ranking, California (B-) ranks LESS corrupt than states like Kansas(C), Minnesota(D+), Oregon(C-), and Iowa (C+).

Yet according to the NYT, DOJ cited, per capita stat that Tuley is NOW trying to use (since everyone knows CPI is a well funded ******* org), Kansas, Minnesota, Oregon, and Iowa actually rank LESS CORRUPT than California. The complete opposite.

You can't make this up. Tuley actually posted two different interpretations of data to support his "theory" about California being a less corrupt state, that actually don't agree with each other. This is golden right here.

You know you're on the stronger ground when your opponent actually sinks his own ship.

The CHART. The chart. The CHART right Tuley? Except if it doesn't agree with your point, then it's back to CPI. What was that about stats not lying, but liars do?! Bravo Tuley, bravo!

[Tulemutt]

I haven't posted a theory. I posted statistics. I am not going to bother looking for what you are trying to present as a conflict now. Enough. Your posts have been so ridiculous all along in this thread, but enough is enough entertainment. Anyone else that cares to look, I am going to make a prediction: that the time frames are not identical - and / or the actual definitions of the charts are not the same.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

. I am not going to bother looking for what you are trying to present as a conflict now. Enough.

Right, right. Just bury your head in the sand when you post conflicting data to support your claim. It's better that way. Are you going to put your fingers in your ears now too and yell "La la la la la la!!!"

Anyone else that cares to look, I am going to make a prediction: that the time frames are not identical - and / or the actual definitions of the charts are not the same.,

You mean to tell us you blindly posted conflicting sources before properly vetting them in support of your claim? Now you're asking others to do it for you?!

Say it ain't so Tuley.

[Tulemutt]

Exey. Don't you realize that this thread has become, long ago, just a conversation between you and me? If there is ANYONE else reading still, it is for the amusement value - not to parse and follow the supporting and failing arguments. You appear often to labor under a belief that there's an audience out there that cares about what you say, deeply. That your posts are somehow important - and recognized as such.

We - all of us who post regularly - are just a bunch of idle conversationalists. The fact that some real information and occasional insights spill onto these pages is incidental.

No one cares anymore Exey. And I am done amusing myself with this topic. Have a nice day.

[ExeterMedia]

Yup, no one cares besides us two, and we BOTH know who just got routed. See ya Tuley.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

Yup, no one cares besides us two, and we BOTH know who just got routed. See ya Tuley.

Yes. Well, I do anyway. But "routing" was never a game or my desire. I was simply reporting on the issue ok:

[ExeterMedia]

Just make sure you vet your own sources before you present them next time so they at least agree with each other so you don't embarrass yourself next time.