Slashdot Mirror

Start at http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/006152.php
Move onto: http://surveycentral.org/forum/General/topic/6130.html

It was a huge story. It still is.

Or do you still believe in the WMD theory?

An expectation of privacy is a very new concept in terms of human civilization. Should not all red-light runners be recorded and ticketed? Yes. Should not all shoplifters be recorded and prosecuted? Yes. Should we have a reasonable (even verifiable) expectation that our phone conversations are not eavesdropped upon? Absolutely yes. Shrinkage, vehicle accidents undeniably cost us all. Massive databases containing our conversations that are cross-referenced with our health and shopping preferences to be analyzed against us will cost us all more than we can even yet understand. All Democratic candidates but Bill Richardson are cur dogs and the Right has the whip. Bill is the candidate. Rationality should prevail, not rationalizations or lowered expectations. Here's an example I found by googling "bill richardson" "bill of rights", my apologies to Ken Camp http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011374.php/ S

Your opinion is, in fact, very popular among some of our worst citizens. Here's the thing:

Reagan/Bush's campaign team paid the Iranians to keep the American hostages through the 1980 election against Carter. Then Reagan/Bush's Iran/Contra team sold Iran weapons while also sending Iraq chemical weapons during their war against each other, which Bush followed with a war against Iraq. Then Bush's son started a war against Iraq that's turning it over to Iran.

Weigh all that against Carter failing to stop a Soviet invasion of their neighboring Afghanistan, which undid Russian confidence in their government's invincibility. Throw in Reagan/Bush's creation of the Afghan jihad, including bin Laden, which eventually destroyed the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon. Which Bush's son used to justify invading Iraq, which we're now turning over to Iran (see paragraph 1).

I'll take Carter, thank you, even if he couldn't do much to rescue an economy destroyed by Nixon/Ford's disastrous war in Vietnam, defeat by OPEC (see paragraphs 1 & 2), and general implosion of American confidence after Watergate. To say nothing of the SEC chaired by Bush/Reagan's campaign manager, Bill Casey (see paragraph one).

Certainly better than the current Bush residue: Worst. President. Ever.

"Companies don't give a crap about americans, even though the companies started in the USA, the CEO and board of directors are American, and they sell their product to Americans. They will move their factories and tech support and anything they can to Mexico or India or anywhere they can find cheap labor. The CEO's are pretty much trators and they are crapping on the USA."

I hate to burst your bubble, but the real "traitors" are Americans themselves not the people running America's companies. Why? Generally when given the option Americans would rather buy a cheaper product than pay more for American-made goods. Would you willingly pay a few thousand dollars more for a car that is in every way equal to a foreign car, for example, based on principle of supporting American workers?

It is estimated about $1,400 of the amount you pay for a GM vehicle goes straight to health-insurance costs for a GM employee. Let's say a Mexican worker's health insurance would contribute only $500 to the cost of every vehicle. Imagine that the Mexican car company is in direct competition with GM and produced an identical vehicle, but the only difference is price. Which one would you buy? Which one would most Americans buy?

Given that GM had a 1.1 billion dollar loss during the first quarter of this year, it would seem they need to find a way to turn around the company quickly. What will become of our auto industry once China starts producing cars en masse with employees that cost around $0.25 / hour? Will you continue to pay thousands more for American cars? Will foreign countries buy American cars even though they are much more expensive?

Try putting yourself in the shoes of these "traitor" CEO's and see what you would do to keep the company in the black. Are there bad CEO's out there? Sure there are. But there are many CEO's that would love nothing more than to continue to give Americans jobs. Bottom line is: if they can't turn a profit then not only do they lose the unskilled workers to foreign countries, the company ceases to exist and all the support, services, sales, tech, legal, finance, and marketing in the USA sink with the ship.

they keep electing Orrin Hatch. That alone speaks volumes. Among other things, he's the proud author of the DMCA, the INDUCE act, the PIRATE act (Porno Is Really Awesome To Endorse, apparently), he advocated the destruction of PCs belonging to software pirates with some vaporware virus, and then was caught red handed using pirated software. He claimed that was a mistake made by his staff. When he was caught with stolen Democratic party memos, he claimed that (you guessed it) it was a mistake made by his staff. At best, he's a clueless old grandpa that has no business writing copyright legislation.

... emergency medical treatment to anyone based on thier ability to pay since the 80's

So what are his choices - wait until it becomes an emergency? And after that, ('cuz emergency care is expensive) end up bankrupt? Sheesh.

As a percentage of the population more blacks commit more serious crimes

Two of the country's foremost researchers on race and capital punishment, law professor David Baldus and statistician George Woodworth, along with colleagues in Philadelphia, have conducted a careful analysis of race and the death penalty in Philadelphia which reveals that the odds of receiving a death sentence are nearly four times (3.9) higher if the defendant is black. These results were obtained after analyzing and controlling for case differences such as the severity of the crime and the background of the defendant. The data were subjected to various forms of analysis, but the conclusion was clear: blacks were being sentenced to death far in excess of other defendants for similar crimes.

As for the ketchup? i can both sides of that. If it is used inside a product them its ingredients need to be listed. if it is a condement then no. I havn't head anyhting of that happening here so i don't know how it was being used.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, proposed classifying ketchup as a vegetable as part of Reagan's budget cuts for federally financed school lunch programs (it would make it cheaper to satisfy the requirements on vegetable content of lunches). The suggestion was widely ridiculed and the proposal was killed.

Now for the effects of Bush's tax cuts killing off the middle class: just google for "tax cust shift burden - you'll get lots of hits showing that the rich (who need it the least) get the most benefit: one example: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000299.html

Three successive tax cuts pushed by President Bush will leave middle-income taxpayers paying a greater share of all federal taxes by the end of the decade, according to new analyses of the Bush administration's tax policies.

recent tax breaks that shift the burden disproportionately to those least able to pay it ...

So, to quote you, in all these cases,

you are either uuninformed or flat out lying...

All this also ignores the problem of the $5 Trillion Bush Deficit, which will have to be paid, meaning less money for social programs, health care, etc., and still more taxes on the middle class.

Now, are you also going to argue that CBS and the New York Times are biased towards Republicans?

Yes.

If you look closely, you'll see that CBS/NYT has exactly the same sampling bias as Gallup does. 40% Republican, 33% Democrat. Which is grotesquely off. If, as in Gallup, you resample those groups so that it's (correctly) around 35% Republican and 39% Democrat, CBS/NYT suddenly predicts a tied race just as the other polls are predicting.

Why are CBS/NYT and Gallup off so much in their sample bias? Bad methodology? Intentional resampling to assume a 40/33 split? Hard to tell. I'm guessing it's due to phone methodology missing the young 'ns who only have cells. But unless they start resampling to a more appropriate party ID assumption, they're soon going to be the poll industry's laughingstocks.

In fact, the situation could be worse for the Republicans than this. In 2000 it was a 35 Republican, 39 Democrat, 26 Independent split, and Nader hurt Gore in the Independents that year. But Kerry is well ahead of Bush in the Independents this year, *and* the Democrats and Independents will be voting in droves this year like no year before. Youngsters are registering in large numbers and they vote disproportionally Democrat. And the Democrats are big-time fired up this year. AND none will be voting for Nader. I personally predict that it'll be 31/41/28 or higher for the Dems and Inds. If this is correct, we're looking at a Kerry lead in most of the current polls.

For more info, a good place to look is DonkeyRising, a blog run by a real pollster. The Left Coaster has some more dirt on Gallup's screwup.

Almost all economists agree....

You lost me from the start.

Perhaps we do not read the same economics journals, but perhaps you have heard of Paul Krugman and J. K. Gailbraith?

I'm not saying "almost all economists" lightly. Surveys show that over 90% of economists favor free trade, and few see any distinction between offshore outsourcing and other international trade.

I don't know what J. K. Galbraith has said about outsourcing.