You Could Have Knocked Me Over with a Feather!

I think that's where we differ, Tico. You take him at his word that the studies he references reflect a majority opinion. I don't.

Putting spin on studies is commonplace. They can do a study that show 95% of the people on unemployment look for work every day and someone can spin that to say studies "show people stay on unemployment compensation and they don't look for a job until two or three weeks before they know the benefits are going to run out."

That's the Foxfire approach to statistics. Take the spin and turn it into "most". You've just done the same thing. Without the study in hand you've jumped straight to "most" and are giving him credibility for sweeping statements that are in all likelihood mostly false.

My opinion of the fella is built on nothing more then an examination of his actions over the years. I don't know him personally and certainly didn't decide to 'hate him' out of some personal animosity.

I think that a detailed examination of the guy's record reveals a pretty scummy fellow, and one who was knee-deep in corruption - all things which you are well aware of.

Cycloptichorn

OK, but even if those studies are true (and I'm not saying they are, if you'd like to find them we can go from there), Delay is saying all of this in support of Bunning's filibuster. Even if the majority of the people don't look until they have only 2-3 weeks left (and I'd want the studies to be about the current economic climate or its equivalent, not in the late 90's say when jobs were ample), I don't think this is a good argument against unemployment benefits.

As in -- I disagree with what Delay is saying, even in the most generous reading of what that is. (And again, it's hard to read it generously when he had the opportunity to disagree with Crowley and didn't.)

You're right ... I'm assuming there is a study that bears out his point. But I also said "likely" ("But what the studies likely show ..."), and the reason I said it that way is precisely because I've not seen the study, I don't know if one exists, and I don't know what it says. But I'm relatively sure it exists, and it says what he says it says. And if there wasn't, I feel sure Cyclops would be trumpeting that news already.

Understood, soz.

Haha, I hadn't thought of that tack, but now that you mention it...

Nah, just kidding.

Cycloptichorn

Cool.

Citing studies but not naming them is hardly arguing. A 'study' might consist of an intern from the Republican central office walking down a street in DC during lunch time and speaking with fewer than a dozen people for all we know.

Besides, questions can be asked so that a bias is built in . . . think of the horrible surveys on Facebook.

it's abut time someone said it, bravo Tico

I don't remember typing that ....

I'm pretty sure I would have put a comma after "Bush."

the lack of a comma surprised me too