Subject:
|
Re: Are some of you guys making it too easy on the rest of us?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jul 2002 22:16:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
371 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> First off, choosing the senate as a basis for investigation is
> flawed from the start because their terms are so long.
I'm not defending my post as a refutation of your claim, but I'm curious about
this. How is long term limit a flaw? I was thinking of it as an asset because
it supplies a venue in which long periods of public service are reasonably
possible. I'm not interested enough to track careers from county clerk through
two terms of House representation and note all the times and stuff.
> Second, he calls a senator who has merely won his third term (but not served 1
> day of the third term) a "long-timer".
Actually, by the way that I did the math, I think they have to have served
about half a year of the third term (or more if their first term was
fractional). But I do figure that most senators did politics before to _some_
extent, so it's not really their career in a vaccuum.
> Even he admitted that his exercise was inconclusive.
Do you actually have support for the 5:1 claim? I figured you were just
shooting from the hip and I wasn't really interested in bugging you about the
specific accuracy of your claim. But if you do have data, I'd be interested.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
