Slashdot Mirror

I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but personally I find your 'God' of blood, vengeance, and death, to be significantly less than warm-and-fuzzy, so I think I'll just stick to atheism, OK?

Not sure why people think that a supreme being should be warm-and-fuzzy. If you were a supreme being, would you be warm and fuzzy? Not that we should make any god in our image...

On the other hand, if 9/10 people believed in something (like global warming) and you didn't want to believe in it because it didn't make you feel warm and fuzzy, would you be a denier? Just food for thought, OK?

No, they are not legally bound to it. Unless your marriage contract has some weird (and potentially invalid) clauses, you can't sue your spouse for cheating. It now won't even be taken into consideration when, for example, calculating alimony.

That depends on the state. Currently, in 21 states, adultery is still a criminal offense. It is very rarely prosecuted, but the laws are still on the books. In the majority of states, adultery can be taken into account to some extent in divorce settlements when determining division of property, alimony, or child custody.

You're correct that in some states adultery has very little standing in marital cases and divorces, but those principles vary significantly from state to state. It is still a generally established legal principle in most states that sexual fidelity is a general expectation in marriage. And it tends to be an official legal reason for divorce (in states that still allow divorce "for cause," rather than only "no-fault" divorces).

As for fidelity being an assumption, even though there's no real stats about it, the idea that a lot of people will cheat is well accepted. Because of that, still having this assumption of fidelity is pretty much wishful thinking.

Given that polls have consistently shown that 90+% of the American public believes adultery is "morally wrong," it may be "wishful thinking" for some people or some relationships -- but clearly it is an established social and moral expectation.

Infidelity does not cause direct harm. Any harm someone may feel because of infidelity is only in his own head. It's the same kind of harm some religious fanatics claim when someone "insults" their religion. We do not have a moral obligation to bow to anyone "sensitivities", no matter how they will be psychologically affected by the destruction of their illusions.

Every marriage is different, but at its basis it is an agreement about a relationship between two parties. As I said in the post you replied to, I have absolutely no problem with those two parties allowing sex with whomever if that's what they wish.

Again, the problem is deception and fidelity to the agreement. If you want to get married and have a clear and open agreement with your spouse that allows you to have an "open marriage," I have absolutely NO problem with that.

But clearly established legal opinion and the vast majority of public opinion believes adultery to be incompatible with the "default" position of a marital agreement. If you don't want a part of that, either don't get married, or be clear with your spouse about the fact that you expect an open marriage. Doing otherwise is benefitting from someone else in significant ways through deceit.

I can understand why you think a legal contract should generally be respected (of course sometimes respecting a legal contract can be morally wrong), but fidelity is simply not part of the legal contract.

Yes, it is in many states, as I already mentioned. But regardless of LEGAL circumstances -- there's also the morality of general agreements too.

Even if you don't have a legal right to sue someone for a breach of a particular contract, there is a notion of moral "fair dealing" and "honesty" in most contractual agreements. You posed your questions initially in moral terms, not only legal ones. Even if the law does not compel you to act in certain ways, morality may still dictate that certain courses are right and wrong.

Generally speaking, lying to someone to gain their affection (not to mention all the other benefits that generally accrue in marriages -- financial, social, etc.) is morally wrong.

What next? Will you say the obligation to cherish your spouse until death is also part of the con

Maybe it's about time to open up the conversation on why we find one physical activity with another person to be taboo, but not another (like say tennis).

In a 1991 study, sex researcher Shere Hite found that 70 percent of married women have cheated on their partners; a 1993 follow-up study found that 72 percent of married men have as well. According to a 2004 University of Chicago study, 25 percent of married men have had at least one extramarital affair.

Interestingly, for the past few decades, surveys have consistently shown that only 5-8% of people find adultery "morally acceptable," while 90+% always find it "morally wrong."

So, even if your study numbers are accurate, some simply math shows it's pretty clear that the vast majority of those cheaters are willing to morally condemn their own behavior.

I'm noMaybe it's about time to open up the conversation on why we find one physical activity with another person to be taboo, but not another (like say tennis). In a 1991 study, sex researcher Shere Hite found that 70 percent of married women have cheated on their partners; a 1993 follow-up study found that 72 percent of married men have as well. According to a 2004 University of Chicago study, 25 percent of married men have had at least one extramarital affair. t saying I disagree with your idea that perhaps people should talk about these numbers. But whether people cheat or not, it seems clear that VAST majorities disapprove of the behavior in general... probably because in most cases they wouldn't want to be deceived and cheated upon (even if they did it themselves). And that observation perhaps speaks just to how strongly people want to BELIEVE in the idea of fidelity, even if they may not be very good at it.

When the text of the amendment reads as such:

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

it really makes you wonder when people then try to claim it is perfectly acceptable to infringe on the rights of gun owners. How would you feel if I was campegning to take away the right of everyone to speak out against the federal government? After all, many countries today feel it is perfectly acceptable to take this right from their people, so it must be the one and only path to true enlightenment.

Feel free to call the constitutional convention, just don't be surprised when your amendments fail.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179...

Less than half of Americans feel the laws need to be stricter. Last I checked, it requires a 2/3 majority to amend the constitution.

How do you objectively define excess? I can live very well (in the US) on under $20k/year, but most people consider that poor. Subjectively, I would say anything higher than $30k/yr is excess, do you agree? The world median income is under $10k/yr. Most people in the US are greedy then, no?

Heck, his average rating for the whole presidency is only 47%, he isn't very well liked.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116...

Now, if DNS-and-BIND had said racist rants, or sexist rants, sure, that makes sense.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180...

Firemen were only on that poll once, in 2001 (after 9/11) and they topped it. Not sure why they weren't included before or after. Other polls I found were too small or international. Internationally, teachers are more trusted than they are in the US, so they rise up. And medical personnel regularly beat firemen as well. Though firemen are consistently near the top, just about everywhere. The point was that with infinite power, comes little abuse in firemen. Though not so with other professions.

Those who would be firemen are those who should be cops. They want to help others. They have power, but don't want it, and don't abuse it.

Instead, in the US, the people who become cops are the ones that want to abuse power.

It's a pretty bold assertion to claim that increasing the concentration of one of the atmosphere's most optically active constituents by 30% won't have any significant consequences on temperature. Do you have anything to back that up, other than your political leanings? What makes you believe that rising CO2 is not a significant problem, and what is it that you understand about CO2 and the history of climate on planet Earth that physicists and climatologists don't?

Figures; in the U.S., party affiliation is the most reliable predictor of one's opinion about global warming, but if you dare suggest around here that someone's opinion is influenced by politics, you get modded to hell.

I cited many examples of people talking about poll inaccuracy.

I don't give the smallest fuck over your many irrelevant citations. I'm simply telling you that your claim about how election polls "very rarely match up with the actual election" is complete horseshit.

Election polls in the US have a long track record of accuracy going back DECADES. The fact that you refuse to recognize this - even when you're pimp-slapped with actual data - just shows how utterly out of touch you are with reality.

As to opinion polls, actually the topic is about Pew Opinion poll.

No you pinhead, the topic at hand is your statement:

...look election polls prior to the election. They very rarely match up with the actual election. Why is that?

Why do you have to constantly be reminded of your dimwitted remark? I guess if I were you, I would want to forget about it too. After all, the only thing dumber than saying it would be defending it...oh wait.

Kill yourself. No really. Put down the keyboard. Get up. And stop wasting oxygen.

What a childish little twat you are.

As to ignorance regarding poll participation... You really did zero research in your short life didn't you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Yes, poll response rates are falling. Yes, declining rates can introduce selection bias. I guess it's a good thing I didn't claim otherwise.

But declining response rates don't automatically cause a poll to be inaccurate. How do I know that? Because the SECOND FUCKING PARAGRAPH of your huffpo article reads:

"Yet the study also finds evidence that on most of the wide variety of measures tested, the declining response rates alone are not causing surveys to yield inaccurate results."

Talk about doing ZERO research. Protip: read through an article BEFORE claiming it supports your position.

What a pitiful display. Your ability to embarrass yourself with a constant flow of ignorant, self-contradictory statements is simply breathtaking. And your multiple sorry ass attempts to move the discussion away from your original statement isn't going well for you. Apparently you are oblivious to that fact.

The world is better place now that you're gone. There is one less moron. :D

I'm not going anywhere, nimrod. I've got lots of free time to help you continue to humiliate yourself.

...look election polls prior to the election. They very rarely match up with the actual election. Why is that?

Why is that? Because you made it up, you fucking retard.

The truth is polls are rarely wrong. for national elections.

You constantly pepper your arguments with made up shit. I guess you think that you think your long bullshit posts won't be examined by anyone. Well, this is the internet, and you're not the only one with no life who can spend all day posting on /.

There is a vocal minority of people

Are you sure?

They are not in charge.

Are you sure?

Obviously this is a grievous error which should be fixed, but I can definitely see how a machine learning system could pick up this answer as a false positive with no foul play*: extinction through biblical flood may be the most commonly held hypothesis in the US.

42% of Americans believe in creationism, and it's not unlikely that they'd all believe dinosaurs were killed in a flood.

The other 58% could be split between asteroids, volcanos, continental drift, "other" and "don't know", with no single group having a share over 42%.

* Centuries of generally teaching BS to kids notwithstanding

I think religion is pretty dumb and all, but I'm having a hard time seeing why it needs to be "fixed". Search engines are for finding web pages that contain your search terms, not for finding the truthful answers to questions. If the resulting crappy web page actually contains the searched terms then Google did it's job properly.

Obviously this is a grievous error which should be fixed, but I can definitely see how a machine learning system could pick up this answer as a false positive with no foul play*: extinction through biblical flood may be the most commonly held hypothesis in the US.

42% of Americans believe in creationism, and it's not unlikely that they'd all believe dinosaurs were killed in a flood.

The other 58% could be split between asteroids, volcanos, continental drift, "other" and "don't know", with no single group having a share over 42%.

* Centuries of generally teaching BS to kids notwithstanding

There are statistics that come out all the time:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157...

The media is generally not trusted. It is just that it is the primary source for nearly all information so they have the ability to start a discussion and frame it. even if they're not trusted, their ability to manipulate the national discussion is quite extensive if they can merely bring choose when they want to bring up a topic and frame it.

Take the whole issue with police brutality. Are the media reports of police brutality valid? Sometimes. But a bigger issue is that they're very selective about what they talk about. Often they are pushing an ideological agenda so they'll talk about a specific case because it supports their position.

In my city, there are about 400 murders a year. That is in a population of about 12 million or so. How many of those incidents get reported by the media? Almost none. How many criminals are fatally killed by police officers? I'm sure there are at least dozens a year... and again... how often do you hear about them? Almost never.

Yet every so often one of these will get reported on, then get picked up by the social activists, and then get spun by the media as being indicative of a pattern of abuse. Now there could be a pattern there but a SINGLE incident does not give you a pattern. You'd need to look at a broader selection of examples and rather than coming to it with preconceptions, you instead would need to form you opinion from the data.

The media almost never does this since they're very narrative driven.

It is sort of as if creationists ran the news because their methodology is identical. They first form an opinion and then they look for what they call an "emblematic" case to promote that opinion. The rolling stone rape story was an example of that. They already knew what they wanted to say but didn't feel comfortable just making an editorial to say that. So instead, they looked for an example that they could use to validate their opinion. They couldn't find one which was sort of funny because they were claiming an epidemic. So after not being able to find an example they just settled for the sketchiest least reliable source they could get and tried to pull off a hoax.

It went disturbingly far before backfiring. But that sort of thing is quite common and most people take media reports with a grain of salt.

Dwindling? 63% of the population supports the death penalty, and the low point in public support was actually back in the 1960's. Indeed over the last century support has gone up and down here and there but there is no downward trend overall. We're actually higher in support now than when the first poll was done in 1936.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160...

I understand Europeans and others have difficulty understanding this. I'll explain:

To be clear: polls show that about 1/3 of Americans don't buy your logic. So while you may speak for many in the U.S., there is a substantial minority that disagrees.

We generally believe that certain crimes are so horrific that the only possible punishment is death. Unlike other places, our criminal justice system is not merely based around removing the threat from society, or rehabilitating them, but also around the idea of punishment.

Funny, that. The U.S. justice system has a long history of claiming that lex talionis is no longer our operating principle. That's why we have departments of "corrections" where we supposedly "rehabilitate" people. But you implicitly are claiming that's all rhetoric -- that when it comes down to it, we're just after revenge.

After all, what other justification is there for punishment when it is not intended to rehabilitate?

This misses the point. Justice based upon the idea of punishing someone, as a part of retributive justice or deterrence, has a long history, and while continentals may disagree, it's what we in the US choose to do. We believe, or at least our court system does, that some people DESERVE to die for their actions.

I'm in the U.S. I used to be at least a nominal supporter of the death penalty. I remember having long debates with friends when I was younger, and I made similar arguments to what you do. I also came up with other tangential justifications, which often appear here on Slashdot, like "it'd be worse if I were kept in prison for life, so I'd rather die in those circumstances -- therefore we should kill them" or whatever.

But as I've grown older, I've realized that arguments in favor of the death penalty inevitably boil down to FOUR main justifications:

(1) I'm mad at that guy. That's essentially what you're endorsing -- somebody did something bad, so I'm mad and I'm gonna kill him.

(2) I'm afraid of that guy. This is the argument that some people are so evil and cannot be rehabilitated, so they should be "put down" for the good of society. That might be valid reasoning if there weren't an alternative -- but we have maximum security prisons now. We don't need to kill this person to protect us.

(3) I want to scare other people. This has nothing to do with the actual justice served on an individual, but rather the idea that the death penalty actually deters other criminals from committing murder. There are some studies that suggest the death penalty may have a minor effect as a deterrent; there are others that refute that claim and say there is no statistical effect. One this is clear: Murderers are deterred by fear that they will be caught and go to prison, but a distant possibility of a death penalty is less of a deterrent. Perhaps if we reinstituted public executions where we tortured people in Times Square before killing them in some horrific way, maybe it might deter somebody... but the death penalty is applied so rarely and randomly that it can't function as a realistic deterrent.

(4) We've always done it this way. That's basically your other argument: there's a long history of revenge killing by the state, so why not continue to do it? it's the same wacky logic that propagates all sorts of ridiculous and stupid traditions and keeps our society from getting better. "I'm gonna haze these young dudes, because I was hazed." "When I was first starting out, I had to work 60 hours each week on little pay, so why shouldn't I do the same to these stupid kids." Etc. Sometimes to improve society, it makes sense to interrogate our traditions and ask whether they're actually doing good things, or whether it might be better for everyone if we found another way

Actual scientific studies seem to indicate that poorer people are much more likely to be religious than well-off people. For examples, look at this Gallup page that says Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations. Or check out the Wikipedia page on Wealth and Religion which says "The GDP of countries generally correlates negatively with their religiosity, i.e. the wealthier a population is the less religious it is". There are several studies cited on that page that seem to support that conclusion. You claim to have a source for your assertion that "lack of religion in the us is strongly correlated with poverty", can you please provide it?

Here are Gallup's historical trends up to 2013. Some things to note:

1. The % of those who say religion is a "very important" part of their life has remained roughly constant.
2. The % of those who says religion is only a "fairly important" part of their life has showed more consistent decline.
3. The % of "nones" seems to be mostly cannibalizing from the "fairly important" group, who are essentially nominal believers. The % of people who are "devout" seems to be more-or-less holding its own.
4. The % of people who claim to have attended church or synagogue in the last 7 days has remained roughly constant.
5. The % of people who self-identify as "evangelical or born-again Christians" has remained roughly constant (except for an elevated plateau from 1998 to 2002).
6. The % who self-identify as "evangelical or born-again" is actually higher (40%) in 2013 than it was in 1992 (36%).

The good news is that the economy IS creating that many jobs in solar. 2014 saw 31,000 jobs added in one year, and this initiative is to train 75,000 over 5 years.

The demand is there, as long as the growth continues, which this poll from 2013 and this Zogby poll from last week that shows even 2 out of 3 Republicans agree that the Federal Investment Tax Credit for solar should be renewed.

I have no idea why Slashdot, allegedly a bastion of personal freedom and libertarianism, can't get with expanding personal rooftop solar. Is it the whole solution? Absolutely not. But it's definitely helping far more than it's hurting.

All we had to do was LITERALLY NOTHING

But then, what's going to be his legacy? Not Obamacare, not peaceful Iraq (or Libya), not economic recovery, not lower unemployment, not reductions in income disparity.

Liberalization of marijuana? But that's individual States' achievement...

Being able to claim to have "normalized relationship" with Iran (and Cuba) will — for generations — be trumpeted as "success" by sympathetic historians. Or so he hopes...

The public is moving inexorably toward acceptance of gay marriage.

Check the historical data:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117...

Wyden's on-record questioning of James Clapper â" wherein Clapper answered "No sir... not wittingly" to Wyden's "Do you collect any information on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" question â" is cited by Snowden as the event that pushed him over the edge, and caused him to disclose the US domestic spying programs. Wyden's patriotism set the whole thing in motion.

I wonder if Wyden really knows this... and realizes where it may lead. If political ambition is his goal he could take it to the top some day. In 2015 Americans view 'the government' as the No. 1 Problem to solve. Unfortunately the issues they are most upset with -- such as healthcare -- are extremely partisan.

Domestic NSA surveillance is NOT a partisan issue. Who will chair the first Church Committee of the 21st Century? Senator Frank Church warned us waay back in 1975,

"Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left such is the capability to monitor everythingâ"telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide.

"If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.

"I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."

As Snowden has revealed, we are at the edge of the abyss. As I have repeatedly warned in these forums, this furor over so-called phone call metadata is a limited hang-out, a diversion from the clear and present danger of full content backbone taps at interconnects. And here in Wyden's remarks we get a glimpse that there is more to the story. A 21st Century Church Committee is needed.

Here's what Wyden needs to do:

1. Call a press conference to announce that there is enough cause in the publicly available Snowden leaks, as well as certain other details he is privy to and cannot disclose, to form a 21st century bi-partisan 'Church Committee'. He would need to give a quick recap of those 1975 proceedings for those who are historically challenged... but it would make for a very interesting and well televised event.

2. Call another press conference the very next day. This one to publicly announce and air out any personal dirty laundry he may have. Extra-marital affairs, investments with conflicts of interest. Unless there is murder in there not only will he get a free pass, but people would take notice if he states that he is 'clearing the field' and proactively mitigating any attempt to leak this information as a distraction. He can also point out that whether or not they would take such action, they may be in possession of this information, and that is what the Committee hopes to address.

3. Get the ball rolling.

It's time to pull the chain and flush the NSA. I call for the death penalty -- that is complete defunding (including black budget), complete dism

Wyden's on-record questioning of James Clapper â" wherein Clapper answered "No sir... not wittingly" to Wyden's "Do you collect any information on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" question â" is cited by Snowden as the event that pushed him over the edge, and caused him to disclose the US domestic spying programs. Wyden's patriotism set the whole thing in motion.

I wonder if Wyden really knows this... and realizes where it may lead. If political ambition is his goal he could take it to the top some day. In 2015 Americans view 'the government' as the No. 1 Problem to solve. Unfortunately the issues they are most upset with -- such as healthcare -- are extremely partisan.

Domestic NSA surveillance is NOT a partisan issue. Who will chair the first Church Committee of the 21st Century? Senator Frank Church warned us waay back in 1975,

"Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left such is the capability to monitor everythingâ"telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide.

"If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.

"I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."

As Snowden has revealed, we are at the edge of the abyss. As I have repeatedly warned in these forums, this furor over so-called phone call metadata is a limited hang-out, a diversion from the clear and present danger of full content backbone taps at interconnects. And here in Wyden's remarks we get a glimpse that there is more to the story. A 21st Century Church Committee is needed.

Here's what Wyden needs to do:

1. Call a press conference to announce that there is enough cause in the publicly available Snowden leaks, as well as certain other details he is privy to and cannot disclose, to form a 21st century bi-partisan 'Church Committee'. He would need to give a quick recap of those 1975 proceedings for those who are historically challenged... but it would make for a very interesting and well televised event.

2. Call another press conference the very next day. This one to publicly announce and air out any personal dirty laundry he may have. Extra-marital affairs, investments with conflicts of interest. Unless there is murder in there not only will he get a free pass, but people would take notice if he states that he is 'clearing the field' and proactively mitigating any attempt to leak this information as a distraction. He can also point out that whether or not they would take such action, they may be in possession of this information, and that is what the Committee hopes to address.

3. Get the ball rolling.

It's time to pull the chain and flush the NSA. I call for the death penalty -- that is complete defunding (including black budget), complete dism

Hmmm... you have to be careful with Russian media:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167...

His poll numbers were in decline and most analysts believe his actions are a crass political ploy to boost his poll numbers in Russia:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

I can cite articles and conclusions from think tanks all over the world if you like. I read something from a Japanese source the other day that said the same thing.

This is how the governments of the world see this action.

And that US counter response is going to focus on Putin's support base.

Oh my god. Islamic nations are not the same as Japanese is not the same as Korean is not the same as India. In fact India has had a long and tumultuous history of dealing with Islamic invaders who slaughtered their leaders and people.

You haven't even spoken to any of these people. You sit at home in front of your computer, isolated from the rest of the world's cultures, with not a clue as to how these societies actually work. It's so easy for Americans or Europeans to dismiss other societies as inferior, oppressive, ruled by violence. These words are so obscene and heavy, filled with the worst kind of accusations. You've put yourself on this absurd pedestal of superiority.

You honestly think billions of people, hundreds of millions of families, are carrying on lives where half the population is living in utter fear and misery? That they feel scared, helpless, controlled, etc.? Do you have a clue what you're trying to say? How could these extremely communal societies that emphasize harmony function like that for thousands of years? How does that jive with studies like this that show women feel less safe in developed countries: http://www.gallup.com/poll/155...

How can you make proclamations without at least interacting with these cultures?

Slavery? What? Are you referring to "servants", who are paid for their work just as a US house maid or butler would be?

What do you mean by women are "treated like trash"? Women are raped in every country, and every culture, by *criminals*, not normal people. Women actually feel less safe than men in almost every country, with the gap often greatest in developed countries: http://www.gallup.com/poll/155...

I don't know why you think rapists and child molesters aren't punished. If a woman doesn't report a crime then yes the rapist will go unpunished, but that's true in every country. No one likes child molesters, anywhere at all.

You have an emotional reaction to this event and you can't even think clearly.

The UK already does.

California also does this. We have ads on billboards with guys holding limp cigarettes in their mouth. The anti-smoking ads in California are funny, and very effective. Smoking rates here have fallen dramatically. Only Utah has a lower rate of smoking. Telling rebellious teenagers that smoking is bad makes them do it more. Convincing them it is uncool works.

You're arguing from what you expect, rather than from data.

The number of Americans able to hold a conversation in a foreign language is about 25%. Which is nowhere near "Most Americans".
http://www.gallup.com/poll/182...

This is especially bad since about 17% of Americans are Hispanic. Not all Hispanics are bilingual, of course.

In the UK the bilingual rate is about 38%; in Ireland it's 34%, both higher than the US, despite your claims. Across the EU, it's 56%.
http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

It's understandable that English-speaking countries have lower rates, but even within English-speaking nations, the US is pretty near the bottom.
(Australia is right at the bottom.)
http://yourlanguage.org/resear...

Stop letting business majors run your company and stay private.

Better get lawyers to run it, then.

Running a business today is risking suicide by lawsuit or government red-tape or regulatory harassment and fines. Business majors and lawyers both tend to be better at handling those risks because they don't have to worry about being engineers, too.

The days of entrepreneurship are over.

Unless you're an immigrant, that is. In that case you're probably too ignorant to know just how much you're putting your ass on the line when you start a business.

About 48%? Currently about 52% of Americans own stocks (including mutual funds and retirement accounts), and that number has been trending lower each year since 2007.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162353/stock-ownership-stays-record-low.aspx

Half the population doesn't understand Evolution; and, might have some doubts it is fully correct. However, the number that "don't believe" is actually much smaller. The problem is that we tend to bias our polling over such topics quite badly

Here is the Gallup poll most frequently cited, in which some 40%+ say "God created humans in their present form," which would seem to preclude the idea that we evolved.

Of course, there are a number of ways you can believe animals evolved but humans are somehow "special" and exempt from non-guided evolution, but the poll doesn't distinguish between human evolution and the rest of biology.

the democrats are on the left of US politic

Not when elected Democrats are to the right of Republican voters on most issues. Republican voters don't want bank bailouts, their Medicare or SS cut, nor did they want the NDAA or telecom immunity. Hell, they "evolved" on ending DADT before Obama did.

Since there is no such thing in the U.S. as a national referendum on laws or regulations

We can change that: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163...

And changing it requires amending the Constitution, either with the normal Congressional and state ratification process, or a Constitutional convention. I suspect what you really want is national referendums, and net neutrality is just the way you're bringing it up today, since you didn't respond to anything about net neutrality, or even propose a solution to making it law or regulation that has any chance in the near future.

Since there is no such thing in the U.S. as a national referendum on laws or regulations

We can change that: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163...

69% of Americans agree that "there is solid evidence that the earth is warming," and 65% of Americans class climate change as a "very serious" or "serious" problem.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

That is a miss-representation of the article;

While a survey in March found that 69% of Americans agree there is solid evidence the earth is warming, only 33% described it as a “very” serious problem, while another 32% said it was “somewhat serious.” Most Americans believe climate change is real, but fewer see it as a threat

"serious" is a higher quantitative degree than “somewhat serious”, in fact the same article also says

Separately, a Pew Research survey of 39 nations conducted between March and May found that 40% of Americans say climate change as a major threat to the U.S., compared to a median of 54% in the global survey.

Gallop asked what Americans worried about, in regards to climate change, 24% responded a "great deal", 25% responded a "Fair Amount" and 51% responded "a little/Not at all".

How does reducing interest rates on debt increase college costs?

Now that college has become a requirement for the vast majority of middle class jobs it's not really an optional product for consumers. When you lower the cost of debt that means they have a larger capacity for debt and the schools will jack up tuition rates until that capacity is once again fully utilized. Pretty straightforward economics. Why do you think rates have been skyrocketing for the last 40 years?

As for food safety

I wasn't aware that bill had actually passed. That looks like a net benefit for all Americans but I don't think you can claim that's a specifically middle class stance. I'll go with 3/4 of a point.

As for smoking I disagree with you.

Smoking rates decline as income goes up, with the highest rates among the working poor: http://media.gallup.com/poll/g...

Testing I don't know what you mean about so far it doesn't look good, major improvement.

At this point there isn't enough data for a conclusive analysis so I suppose we'll have to chalk that one up to difference of opinion for the moment.

Why wouldn't Obama get credit for gulf oil compensation?

The BP oil spill compensation was based on a desire to settle out of court. The laws were already on the books that would have required cleanup and compensation so the Democrats don't get any special mention for the time period we're discussing.

My point being yes they do stuff for the middle class.

Once in a while, mostly by accident, which is approximately the same record as the Republicans.

No, not really. There are various ways to poll weather "most people approve of what R&D are doing" but Congressional approval at 14% and presidential approval around 50% (with some pretty significant drops), I don't know that you could safely take the approval of the majority as a foregone conclusion. The general tone I'm seeing is that people are getting increasingly discontented(sp?) with their government, Occupy style. There are two realistic choices, and I think the argument could be made they are both similar enough to be considered functionally equivalent (think Bush / Obama actions). To a large degree, they are also not what the people want.

No, not really. There are various ways to poll weather "most people approve of what R&D are doing" but Congressional approval at 14% and presidential approval around 50% (with some pretty significant drops), I don't know that you could safely take the approval of the majority as a foregone conclusion. The general tone I'm seeing is that people are getting increasingly discontented(sp?) with their government, Occupy style. There are two realistic choices, and I think the argument could be made they are both similar enough to be considered functionally equivalent (think Bush / Obama actions). To a large degree, they are also not what the people want.

Is there any proof for your hypothesis?

Yes, there is evidence. The US invasion of Iraq was not history's bloodiest war, but it was one of the dumbest. Polls taken in 2002-2003 clearly show that opposition to that invasion was strongly correlated with education level. High school dropouts were the most likely to favor invading, and people with graduate degrees were the most likely to oppose it.

This doesn't mean that education can prevent all wars, but maybe it can prevent the really dumb wars.

What does "pro-life" mean to you?

The majority of Americans, 58%, are pro-life if you take that to mean "abortion should be legal in only a few circumstances, or outright illegal" (only 39% support legal abortion in "all" or "most" circumstances). Very few of those 58% are "anti-contraception" as that's a fairly extreme religious view (even most Catholics don't buy it).

Your belief seems to be:
* Some people support X
* Some people who support X support Y
* Therefore, all who support X support Y

Which makes me wonder if you've ever even thought deeply about the issue.

You are completely incorrect regarding rural or otherwise people's belief in evolution. Back to the ignorance issue, I don't know if their science classes leave it out, or if their sunday schools successfully obliterated that part of their education with the fire and brimstone. I don't know the causative factors, but in my experience, the percentage of people in those areas who believe in *any form of evolution* (outside of the ability of a virus to mutate) is somewhere around 0%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/218...

There's a national poll.

http://www.religioustolerance....

There's a good breakdown by state.

Very few? Come on. You're making shit up now.

Actually the statistics do suggest that most US citizens are religious fuckwits. e.g. http://www.gallup.com/poll/170...

I'll accept that doesn't make them bigots if you accept that European kids may also be paedophiles.

Indeed. However, the Discovery Institute's chance of success depends entirely on obfuscating that goal. There's a lot more people who would support "intelligent design" as some sort of oppressed underdog "scientific theory" than who would support it as the blatant theocratic idea it really is.

Which is why it's called Intelligent Design. in fact, when they were converting from Creationism to Intelligent Design, they basically did a search and replace. And they left transition fossils to show how "Creationism" evolved into "Intelligent Design" because of a messed up search-and-replace.

(A transition fossil is just that - if you have animal A and animal B, and you know B evolved from A, then there has to exist a creature in-between A and B, called the transition fossil since evolution works on such timescales that many generations of creatures will exist between then and now).

Yes, there was evolution in the DI texts :).

It's too bad that more Americans believe in creationism than the great flood, since the latter is a lot more scientifically plausible than the other two ideas you mentioned. I mean, it's pretty clear that the "entire earth" didn't flood, but it may sure have seemed that way to somebody living in what is now the Black Sea about 7600 years ago.

True, there was evidence of it, however there was unlikely to be an Ark. Maybe 40 days and 40 nights of rain, but that's about it.

Approximately 40% of Americans believe God created humans as-is. (The rest believe either humans evolved, or humans evolved with God providing a helping hand). And that percentage has remained fairly stable over the past 30+ years.

Russian separatists give themselves a huge black eye. A major Western economy fails to accept energy poverty. Dems are using illegal immigration to guarantee a huge loss four months from now. The UN got caught hiding Hamas missiles in one of the Gaza 'schools' they operate.

Bad day eh? Maybe head back to Vice and stare at pictures of dead pallys for a while and feel better. Off you go.

Phrases like "revisionist nonsense" and "it is silly to say" should likely be used sparingly unless you have a very deep grasp of your subject matter.

Conflating the Tonkin Gulf Resolution with America's war in Vietnam would be a mistake. In bringing Tonkin into an argument you may wish to acquaint yourself with records detailing the Johnson Administration's orchestration of the resolution. See Michael Beschloss's work for instance, or the Pentagon Papers, either portions of the full set or the single volume if your time is short. With Tonkin Johnson was reacting from fear of voters, but the documentary record shows clearly that the Administration wished to expand the war despite public sentiment, not because of it.

In arguing that the war in Vietnam was popular you will likely want to look at some actual polling data, http://www.gallup.com/poll/119... for instance. Anecdotal evidence such as Nixon's 1968 platform may also prove useful to you.

A hospitality room is a hastily spelled hospital room - go to one some time, there filled with poor people with minor illnesses (colds, flues, things like that) because the hospital emergency room is required to treat people if they can pay or not. Your right that eating habits arn't limited to the poor, he is saying that poor eating habits are more common in lower class. They are generally less educated, including education on nutrition, and are more likely to buy cheaper and less nutritional meals. What he is saying is not wrong nor being a "nazi". http://www.gallup.com/poll/163...

High income dropouts are so few that they make little difference in the result

Actually, dropouts and those who did not pursue college at all outnumber those with only a bachelor degree in the high earning category. Those with postgraduate degrees are the ones who really skew the numbers.

Survey Methods These results are based on a Gallup Panel Web and mail study of 18,525 U.S. adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Dec. 12, 2012, to Jan. 22, 2013. All surveys were completed in English. The Gallup Panel is a probability-based longitudinal panel of U.S. adults who are selected using random-digit-dial (RDD) telephone interviews that cover landline and cellphone telephone numbers. Address-based sampling methods are also used to recruit panel members. The Gallup Panel is not an opt-in panel, and members are not given incentives for participating. The sample for this study was weighted to be demographically representative of the U.S. adult population, using 2012 Current Population Survey figures. For results based on this sample, the margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point at the 95% confidence level. Margins of error are higher for subsamples. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error and bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

18000 is a very high number for phone interviews. I think most were internet polls. So 18000 people who clicked on and took a survey while casually surfing said they are not influenced by social media? If such click-any-dialog-that-pops-up-randomly people are not influenced by social media, what about the people who are actually skeptical of the "series of tubes"?

Lets see here...
These results are from a June 10-11 Gallup poll. Although the current survey context was different, these results are similar to those obtained in a May 2006 Gallup poll measuring support for a government program that "obtained records from three of the largest U.S. telephone companies in order to create a database of billions of telephone numbers dialed by Americans." In that survey, 43% approved and 51% disapproved.

There are significant partisan differences in views of the government's program to obtain call logs and Internet communication. Democrats are more likely to approve, by 49% to 40%. Independents (34% vs. 56%) and Republicans (32% to 63%) are much more likely to disapprove than approve.
-- Gallup

Foot, meet mouth.

Is your experienced backed by a Gallup poll?

To pull some statistics out of it....

Approve.... Disapprove:
R- 32% .... 63%
D- 49% .... 40%
Avg- 37%...53%

It gets better; when they asked whether people approved of Snowden's leak, 49% of Republicans thought it was right, vs 39% of Democrats. And really, this fits in line with the traditional Republican fear of large, expansive government

Seriously, are all you blind GOP supporters that blind to what the rest of the party believes and is in fact their official party stance?

Seriously, are you that blind that you form your opinions based on internet echo chambers rather actual fact?