Slashdot Mirror
Poll Finds 23 Percent of Texans Think Obama is Muslim
A University of Texas poll has found that 23 percent of Texans are convinced that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is a Muslim. Only 45 percent of the people polled correctly identified Obama as a Protestant Christian. Nationwide, the number of people who believe in the "Secret Muslim Conspiracy" is about the same as those who believe that the moon landing was faked (5-10 percent), which makes the high numbers in Texas unusual.
Texas is a whole 'nother country.
They have great ice cream (Blue Bell), great water parks (Schlitterbahn), nice lakes and neat caverns. But they also have a lot of insular communities in the country (I grew up in one...not fun if you disagree with the pack/herd).
SCHLITTERBAHN! (Ahem, sorry.)
And Shiner. You forgot the Shiner Bock!
And Roller Derby.
A sample size of 550 gives an error rate of less than 5%, assuming they have randomized it.
See this page for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size
As long as the sample is representative, the margin of error there is only about +/- 3.5%. (Sample Size Calculator)
Most national polls use sample sizes of 1000 or less, chosen from a population of 300 million. The whole point of polling is that you don't need to talk to a huge percentage of the population in order to be confident in your results.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
The only problem with that statement is that it isn't true.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
A Schlitterbahn is just an iced puddle, where you run, jump on and schlitter (slide) along...
Quoting the austrian school in serious economic discussions is like quoting creationists or flat-earthers. It's pseudo-science to a degree that real economists are embarrassed by them.
Liar. Hayek is one of the best known economists in world history, who won the Nobel Prize for showing how government intervention is responsible for the business cycle. He was a member of the austrian school, and his advisor was Ludwig von Mises, a highly influential austrian school economist. A quick Wikipedia search will reveal many other noteworthy economists aligned with the austrian school.
You're probably just another dumbass who thinks the free market got us into this mess, when in fact all we've seen in the last 100 years is an interventionist economic policy based on central banking.
A sample size of 550 gives an error rate of less than 5%, assuming they have randomized it.
See this page for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size
You also assume a normal distribution among the population in terms of behavior patterns. Funny this is brought up - just the other day, I was in a meeting with a professor and some colleagues and he mentioned how democrats tend to stop and talk to pollsters more than republicans, hence skewing the polls in favor of the democrats (it had been originally assumed that they tended to respond just as often). Whether or not this is true is another story, but it does make you wonder how flawed and biased (even unintentionally) some reports can be. As such, I do wonder how accurate this is. Are conservatives more likely to respond than liberals? Are the less educated more verbose about this than those more educated?
23% seems like an awfully high number of people who are painfully ignorant about even the most basic characteristics of Obama that I wonder if 1) the study has even been done properly to begin with (you'd be surprised how many studies are done poorly), or 2) so many people are that ignorant to begin with that they will vote for nominee X just because. Either way, scary.
OK, I'll stop rambling now that I finally downloaded Ubuntu :-)
Most people opposed the $700 billion bailout. I've yet to find a serious economist or capitalist who believes that no action was a valid alternative...
I heard a couple economists on NPR claim the problem would work itself out, mostly. I don't remember names, sorry. But really, I think you're making a mistake assuming economists are scientists. I think they're more like lawyers-- you can always find one with any given opinion.
Australia had an openly atheist Prime Minister in the 80's. (Bob Hawke)
Since Hayek died in 1992, he could not possibly have made any statement whatsoever about this particular crisis.
I never said he did.
Hayek showed how the business cycle (i.e., the alternation of expansions and recessions) is intimately related to the government manipulation of interest rates, savings rates, and inflation through the central banks' manipulation of the money supply. This crisis is no exception -- the presence of financial instruments such as credit default swaps makes this scenario more serious, but does not change its fundamental nature.
In a free market model, money should work like any other commodity and derive its value from the market itself. Currencies should be present in many competing forms, and its issuance should not a privilege of the state. In contrast, Chicago school economists (like Milton Friedman, who most people think of when they hear of a free market) advocate government planning and intervention in the form of a central bank, which implies an obstructed economy and not a free market.
The Austrain school of thought which Ron Paul subscribes to studies mathmatical curves of supply and demand and how they should mathmatically balance (when the market is perfect). The problem is market perfection is like a limit in Calculus. You aim for it but its never there. You only get closer and closer to it (for those who do not know what limits are).
For a perfect market you need to have perfectly rational human beings who are well informed %100 of the time. Also in a perfect market there are no monopolies, no barriers of entry, no perfect substitutes, and eveything is always balanced out where if one person ruins the market another balances to offset any correction so everyone is happy in this perfect capitalist utopia.
Here is reality: .. etc. ... and look what they have done? ... uh no. Monopolies are market failures and are not caused by the government. Barriers of entry are the problem by proprietary software or those who have insane power on suppliers
- Economists do not take human/consumer behavior courses. Humans like to shop at the same place which is why chains are so popular and they may not always be the most informed or care if one place has what they need for cheaper. I go to Walmart and thats it
- Investors are not rational. That says it all
- No laws against bad loans and no laws about disclosure of ARMS. Most of the time they are in page 21 of the contract in lawyer speak in very small print and the bank does not mention its an arm. Only WOW 500k for only $1600 a month!!
- Yes its true taxes due change consumer behavior but what are you going to do? Have a volunteer pay system for the military, damns, bridges, hospitals, etc on all public goods?
- People try to get ahead sometimes does not balance but rather tilts the economy so either ther corporations, home owners, or banks try to rig the system for maximum profits which destabilized the market rather than balanced it.
- I do not like what Microsoft and Walmart are doing. I am sure we can just compete agaisnt them and take them down tomorrow right?
So sorry but regulation can be good ... GRASP! . Ronald Reagan may have made it unpopular in the west but the only people who support this system are corporations and investors looking to make a quick buck. Its not socialism or communism to have regulations. People are not rational and do things that harm others and themselves. Normally I like to think if someone is dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot that is their problem. However, we are all suffering indirectly from what a few irrational people did and that is not fair.
http://saveie6.com/
The only 'religious' thing he's done is attend the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, who he now disowns for political reasons. Obama's mother was atheist. He never knew his father. His step-father was muslim.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=74635 It was a televised interview on ABC.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Because he is born of a Muslim father, the Islamic world community will claim him as a Muslim. If he denies his Islam roots, they will denounce him as a traitor of the worst kind - a deserter of Islam - an apostate; Sharia Law proscribes severe penalties for this. http://www.peacefaq.com/apostacy.html#hatist Find out more about his Muslim roots http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5544
All this should not make a difference as to whether or not he is qualified to be the President of the US, but it does feed the phobia Americans have toward a different culture and religion, especially in the light of those who abuse and twist it to their own ends. Would it make a difference if he were Hindi or Buddist or Catholic or Jewish?
Vote your conscience and make an informed decision based on your candidates voting history. What kind of decisions does he make? Can he make a decision? Can you live with this? Would you trust the 'football' with him.
Let's see here..
anti-trust law is one.
We had a very long period without the DOJ and FTC watching over companies and mergers like dead relatives.
It led to: the sugar, railroad, oil, etc trusts, which were so abusive even the government officials who slept with them got scared, and passed the sherman act.
Then there was the whole debacle of unregulated pharmaceuticals and food products, which led to a proliferation of lethally dangerous snake oils and the horrendous meat-packing conditions that inspired "the jungle". The government finally stepped in and created the FDA at the turn of the century.
The labor markets were another. Before fair labor laws were enacted, working conditions in the US made malaysian sweat shops look like club med. Sick days meant you got another job, any organization of labor was met with machine gun fire (literally, you can look up various labor massacres), etc etc.
Then there was a hands-off approach to private banking, until the depression. They repealed key regulations put in place since the depression and the credit crisis was the result.
Of course there are other examples going back to roman times. They used to have private fire companies (they really were fire companies! crassus ran one.. you paid him to put out any fires which might occur or he 'supplied' your home/business with fire..'the hard way')
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Read the rest of Ephesians 5 - don't just stop with the one verse that everyone likes to throw around. It's only a few more lines, so it won't take too much time.
With patriotism, when people do things because of tradition, when you refuse to follow tradition, your patriotism is in question to those that hold tradition as a value. If you don't want to conform, fine, just don't be surprised when people have questions about your positions.
What you're talking about is called jingoism, not patriotism. It's pretty much the polar opposite as convincingly demonstrated by the actions of the traitors in the white house who are the ones who started that whole flag pin, anti-American bullshit.
Personally, I think this code is ridiculous, but if you're going to cite patriotism and fly straight in the face of supposedly patriotic legislation in doing so, you're doing something wrong. I'm glad to see that not everyone is feverish about putting flags everywhere and on everything, as it cheapens the symbol. How that is unpatriotic, I don't know.
US has more incarcerated than China.
There is a profit motive and industry involved.
It also removes dissenting population from the socio-political equation.
I despise 'libruls' as much as 'conservtives'. Warring factions of sheep - herded on towards the same abotior.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp
The context makes it clear. This was nothing like what is being suggested happened.
It wasn't the pledge anyway, it was the Star Spangled Banner, and Obama said "My grandfather taught me that you put your hand over your heart during the pledge, and during the national anthem, you sing."
The only reason the USA has more people incarcerated than China is because China has killed (aka executed) the difference.
BTW, China adds insult to injury by charging the family of the prisoner who is executed a fine for the bullet that is used for the execution.
Yeah, comparing the criminal justice system in China to that in the USA makes a whole lot of sense.