Lucky...

Going from the bile and vitriol posted here daily, the answer to your question is ..... Liberals. Your smarmy quip about sister fucking, living in a trailer and tobacco chewing only proves the point. Well, if the shoe fits.....

That's a non-random sample size of 1...... I'm conviced.

Interesting - the most educated segment of society, the folks you PAY lots of money to educate your kids, supports Obama. Go figure. Maybe but us that support the economy and the work force the most support Mcain! Go figure. Your support for the economy via voting for Bush and garbage has revealed itself. You might thinbk you are supporting the economy, you might even have a cheer written for it, but your votes have helped destroy it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think it's very likely the murderer will be convicted. Unfortunately, he's also got a made in the shade appeal, because the prosecution systematically kept ANY blacks off the jury. The defense team objected to it and the judge ruled against them. You can bet there will appeals in both the Nevada State courts and Federal courts if need be. I'm sure they're already filed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I know, I know, the fact that the detective Mark Furman perjured himself on some irrelevant points didn't help things a bit. Well, he showed bias and that with the botched DNA, I hate to say it was the right verdict. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Also, the jury did not feel - correctly - that Simpson represented a risk to THEIR community, i.e. he was not about to drive down their streets spraying bullets at their children. That has no relevance as to weighing the evidence against the standard of proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He will in part be convicted for being black, which is wrong, but in Nevada that's how it will play. Yea, and the white jury thing just threw us back >50 years. Being an obvious murderer or being black doesn't absolve the system the duty to give a fair trial in front of a jury of his peers....they failed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The appeals will drag on for years and we should be expecting to hear considerable oratory from Brothers Jackson & Sharpton. Where's Johnie Cochran when ya need him?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That those people should not be allowed to fly on this plane let alone deserve to fly in first class. 1) They shouldn't be that overtly rude, ever, about any issue. 2) They should have the right to think that, just not verbalize it. 3) Nice job. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I personally do not think that what is going on over seas should have any bearing on a persons opinion of the people who serve our country. Ditto. The balme falls on the trash in the WH and the sheer, pure geniuses who voted them in.

Let's see. In my 35 yrs. of working in the USA the only time I was out of work for an extended period of time was under RR and the Bushes. take that to thre bank. If your bank doesn't fail soon. Clinton inherited 7% unemp and left 4%, yet another mere coincidence. Meanwhile, the 3 stooges keep enjoying teh worst of most/all indicators and trying to say, 'hey, it's all of us."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And just to be fair, McCain has voted with Bush 90%, not 95% Oh, and here I thought they were one in the same.

I wonder how this affects the Palin bump

This over-simplistic view of the government's ills is wearing thin. Last time I checked there were 535 other folks slighly involved. Oh...and that would be #41. Be sure to exhibit incessant anger at America and Americans in general and rage at conservatives, centrists and anyone who doesn't agree with your ideas. http://alohahawaii.home.att.net/leftwing.html Right, pure coincidence. The Dems give us a robust economy, stock market from 3500 to 9800 and the Repubs give us overall disaster, now the market is on teh brink of ending up < when turd started. Pure coincidence.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>She has an 80% approval rating in the state. Yea, but that's at the titty bars.

Actually Bush's veto claim to fame was the stem cell bill he vetoed after 5 1/2 years. And the Dems have overridden 4 Bush vetoes, unlss my checking was wrong. The Dems are trying, they just don't have a huge lead yet.

Yea, let's all go shoot some buffalo, we'll all feel better tomorrow.

Just ironically most of the bad stuff happens under your boys.

Is that code for Bush and Cheney?

More than one Republican would like to smear the "Manchurian candidate", but that's like shooting yourself in the foot. When the White House becomes a nursing home ( the morning after the victory celebration), Sarah will straighten things out. Yea, by first attacking Russia "Every Walmart in the state of Alabama has sold every firearm and all the ammunition. Seems Alabama is getting ready for the Russian invasion after they leave Georgia." I didn't snope that.... As for Russia, Sarah is just flexing her muscles in front of the American public. Knowing that fear is the only chance she has to get elected.

While that may have been a valid point during the years immediately following WWII, where the only way to get to bomb the west coast of the continental US was to fly over Alaska, it's certainly not true today. Russia could easily bomb the crap out of the US and leave Alaska mostly untouched, which would be the smart way to go anyway since it doesn't muck up the oil infrastructure. Alaska would still be a first strike target and easily reached by Russia's aging Bears. ICBMs could reach the mainland, of course. But you overestimate Russia's Air Force if you think they could just stroll on into our airspace and bomb away. Immediately following WWII? This was last year. http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070920/80150569.html http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/2719/Russian-Bear-bombers-fly-along-Alaskan-Canadian-coastline.html The whole thing of Russia attacking so hillarious

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It was clear that when she was making the comment discussing Russia and the proximity to Alaska it was that she always has to be aware of what is going on in Russia as it relates to diplomatic standing with the USA. She's just trying to create fear, the neo-con agenda. Remember the cartoon by Smigel on SNL where Bush is out of things to say, so he awkwardly stands there and says, "911?" The right tries to make us all think we are on the brink of destruction. This helps to keep us at 8 times the #2 military spender and keeps the RW in office. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Clearly in the event of an attack on the USA by Russia, Alaska would be a first strike entry point. She clearly does need to know this as the commander in chief (Governor) in the protection of her state and its citizens. Yea, that would be brilliant, attack Alaska and make the road trip down thru Canada to mainland US. I'm sure they would be all over that

Looks like a charming little place.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I understood your point just fine, thank you. There may have been a fatal error in logic, but it wasn't mine. Several studies have shown welfare concentration in inner-cities. We agree on that, I never asserted otherwise. What I was saying is that the national crime rate in general can't be correlated to the economy even though I would like to say it diminishes under increased social programs and you would like to say the opposite. You're trying to say that it geographically increases in inner-cities where they have more welfare distributed. I HIGHLY doubt you have have data to support that. I'm not saying it is or is not true, just that you pulled it oput of your ass, but you would have to have national data for: - crime in inner cities - welfare distribution in inner cities vs suburbian areas - population for each and the associated crime rates - several decade history for each It would be a complex issue to really investgate and draw a conclusion. You don't strike me as the kind of guy to exhaustingly go thru piles of data. My main point to this whole mess is that I am generally liberal, so I like to blame the neo-con agenda for most ills. As I might be right, it is not intelligent to do so, so I collect the data to find a correlating factor, then, as Prof stated, see if there is a causal factor. I would say that you probably blame inner-city youth, welfare, social programs, etc for most things w/o doing 1 oz of research; this methodology is really ridiculous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I've also posted an article talking about corroboration between welfare recipients and crime. And the article's methodology is: He’d built up enough trust with the police to get them to send him daily crime and arrest reports, including addresses and types of crime So the method for collection of data is not only dependent upon the police, but it is narrowed to one city. Science would not consider this data worthwhile by itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On the merged map, dense violent-crime areas are shaded dark blue, and Section8 addresses are represented by little red dots. All of the dark-blue areas are covered in little red dots, like bursts of gunfire. The rest of the city has almost no dots. This only covers violent crime, not all crime as I stated. Furthermore, section 8 is just one area of welfare, many suburbian areas have welfare recipients of all kinds. We're making different points here, mine is and always was of a global nature of US crime rate fluctuations vs crime rate fluctuations..... yours was the incidence of inner-city crime in section 8 housing in one city. Obviously, to everyone in here, your methodology is ala John Wayne, mine is much more comprehensive. Yours is good enough for you, mine is never complete so only inferences can be drawn. Both of our models have a correlation to our political ideologies I would infer.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think Employees are parasites? I was comedically paraphrasing. But the essence of it applies in the context I meant it. I was just saying that you think employers get fucked here, try looking in Europe and feel lucky that the laws benefit you here; BIG TIME. I'm sure you're good to your employees, just that you are a bit too Americanized, the law of fucking employees as compared to Western Europe.

That's right, cause in this election Obama is the stable candidate, McSame is the wild card. McSame has to do radical things to win, Obama does not. With that, the Nazi can still win, he just can't be himself to do it.

McSame being ahead in the polls is a week old, welcome to September 6th. Here's one I like to use: http://www.electoral-vote.com/ McSame had a large convention bump and now it's sunsiding. I think the debates will really hurt McSame tho, he is gonna have a hard time seperating himself from the party and the president with whom he voted 95%. And Biden is going to make Palin look like a contestant in a high school debate. Of course we're using the standard of experience with that, that the Repubs refer to. So enjoy your maybe 1% lead for now. You know, if you would show a little more respect for others canidate your views could be taken more seriously and not look so like an angry white man (or what ever). As for the polls, ya, I know it early. We will see if your Mr Muslim can win or not. (See, we can do it too) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You know, if you would show a little more respect for others canidate your views could be taken more seriously and not look so like an angry white man (or what ever). 1) And then you do the same at the end of the post. 2) When people can't impeach an issue, they turn to the person's style, spelling, etc... 3) How dare you call me a white man >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>We will see if your Mr Muslim can win or not. And we'll see if your crusty ole diaper-wearing Nazi can win.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I have had two positions I post to here change in the last, say 5 years. Not because of this site but because I wondered what the hoopla was all about and looked into it. And that's my pint, a posting board is not going to do that in most cases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>First one to change was on gun control. I was in the control crowd until I read an article that got me to wondering. During the time of learning I read the Fed Papers. That is why I am where I am today. (Not genetic I changed and my dad is still pro gun control ). Well, US Const and related docs are fun history, but I think have little to do with contemporary gun controllaws. I have ALWAYS been pro-gun, owned em all my life. DO I think guns contribute to more deaths? Of course. I don't have the data to "prove" it, but that's my opinion. I think people should have the right to defend themselves under all circumstances and guns are required for that in some cases. As for 200 year old docs, they're generally BS as at the writing the authors didn't mean these laws for them, just the masses. Hell, even then, the rules sounded good, just weren't adhered to by many or enforced, unless selectivity required. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Second major change for me was who or what is causing global warmng. I think you know where I am at o n that one. Same process but no major turning point like gun control. I see little where you deviate from the RW doctrine, so I'm sure you discount it even tho you have as much knowledge in the field as I do (or don't have). As with creation/evolution, it's a fool's game to try to guess these issues. The world cycles, are the polar caps in that cycle or not? Is it artifical or not? Most scientists concur that global warming is man-made and that it is big trouble, I tend to agree with them, but who knows? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Point? It is not genetics. We don't know enough about genetics to know the types of psychological traits that are passed along. Remember, it was the conservative mindset that poo-pood, the father of genetics findings, Mendel. The postumously awarded him as the father of genetics. You should be careful about knowing things are a way or not, this is what really rammed me away from the conservative thinking I had before college/university. This is why responsible science doesn't use the word, "proof." You can 'prove' things all day, then one of your 'proovings' gets overturned and the rest are under reconsideration. The approach science uses is liberal and yet thorough, but doesn't assume anything and never makes promises. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As for the budget? YOU try to smiplify to support your position. Ah, this is the subject I like. As with science, if a hypothesis is estsablished, it must then be tested. Grant it, the economy can't totally be tested scientifically so we must just observe it and draw inferences. Take from Reagan forward and make your observations. This has been beat to death, so I don't think I need to restate all the data unless you wish I do. So I don't need to oversimplify anything, all we have to do is compare the almost 20 years of the neo-cons vs the 8 of Clinton. The major indicators are: - annual deficit - debt - inflation - unemployment - wages vs inflation - export deficit - sustainability of these indicators, not just peak and crash Probably others, so if we observe the fiscal policies of these and others, the reult is that the indicators are HUGELY negative for the R's, hard to honestly disagree. You can jump up and down and swear the R's have it right, we just need to wait 20 or 30 more years for their policies to start working, but it just isn't fathomable, reasonable or plausable. Not to mention we haven't seen the totality of all the fiscal damage the neo-cons have done, as the debt will haunt us for generations to come. And you want to say I'm oversimplifying it...... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.There is much more to it that the Dems have to answer for too, but YOU fail to recognize those aspects. So who is worse? Ahhhh, the ole, 'it's fucked up, but it's everyone's fault' defense. Problem is, it started healing during the Clinton years, so that deflates your theory. And after Obama is elected and he starts to heal it, that will certainly solidify the hypothesis to a theory....not that it would take that. As with the scientific model, if you have contradictory results, you infer that the idependent variable is the difference. In this case, the IV is the fiscal policy.

More than one Republican would like to smear the "Manchurian candidate", but that's like shooting yourself in the foot. When the White House becomes a nursing home ( the morning after the victory celebration), Sarah will straighten things out. Yea, by first attacking Russia

He wears diapers..... oh wait, that's true / damn that stress incontinence.