Without knowing the wording of the question, there is no way to evaluate these results. I have seen too many polls reported in ways which distort what the actual results say to buy this one.
I do not misunderstand my place. I think you misunderstand how it works when the mob picks up their pitchforks. If you live comfortably, You seem to think that when the revolution happens that you will be left alone.
There seem to be two mistakes that you are falling into. First, you overestimate how much money it takes to be in the 1%. Second, you think the mob will limit itself to attacking the 1%. When the mob gets started, they will go after the 10% and probably the "30%". I am quite confident that we both fall into that last category.
Further down you leave the impression that you believe that when the revolution happens and the mobs start going after the wealthy they are going to stop with the super-rich. That's not how it works. When the mob starts going after the rich, they are going to start with the merely richer than themselves and the obvious targets among the super-rich. The merely well-to-do are much easier targets than the super-rich.
Guess what? When the mobs start going after the wealthy to redistribute their wealth, you and I will be among their first targets.
He apologized for it because he did not remember one way or the other. He made the mistake of assuming that the "news" media actually checked their facts before they printed their allegations.
Their problem is that they perpetually need to replenish the underclass as it becomes depleted by people pulling themselves up into the middle or upper class.
Yes, but they have been working hard at stopping that with significant success over the last six years. The most interesting thing is that despite the actual evidence people believe this has happened despite the Democrats best efforts rather than because of their efforts. The Democrats say they want to help the poor and downtrodden and people take them at their word despite the constant evidence of the results of their policies.
The only way to find someone who has no 'preconceived position' is to find someone who knows nothing about the topic.
Not really true. Plenty of people know nothing about biology and yet have plenty of preconceived notions about evolutionary theory. The only people without preconceived notions would be newborns.
No, it is definitely true. The person you replied to did NOT say that someone who knows nothing about the topic would not have a preconceived position, merely that ONLY a person who knows nothing about the topic MIGHT have no preconceived position.
In other words, you want someone in that post who does not know anything about the subject. Anyone in the Senate long enough to get this position is going to have formed an opinion on the subject of H-1B visas unless they have been intentionally ignoring the subject. It is not as if Senator Sessions is coming into this position not knowing anything about the subject. He has been on this committee in the past.
Except that he did not SPEAK to the racist group. He spoke to a neighborhood civic association...you know the types of groups which campaigning politicians speak at 5 or 6 a day? The fact that the chairman of that group was a friend of David Duke and had scheduled the David Duke group to meet at the same hotel later that day is not something you can reasonably expect either the Congressman (state legislator at the time) or his aids to know. If they had looked into the background of the civic association at whose meeting he was asked to meet, they would have discovered nothing except a normal neighborhood association.
Why would they have looked into who else was meeting in that hotel later that day? My source by the way is the Times-Picayune and I gave the link further up the thread.
Furthermore, I do not see any of these people fussing about President Obama associating with Al Sharpton, a much more virulent racist than David Duke (after all, I have never seen any allegations that David Duke stirred up violent protests which led to someone being killed , whereas Al Sharpton has no done it at least twice).
Except of course that it turns out that Steve Scalise never spoke at the event sponsored by David Duke. Rather he spoke at an event held by a local civic association (or neighborhood group) at the same hotel where the David Duke group would later meet on the same day.
So, basically you are saying that we should go back to the system the Framers of the Constitution envisioned. That is not a "new economic structure". Rather it is a return to one which was dismantled.
Define this new economic structure and we can discuss its possible merits as well as its possible flaws. So far, every one of the "new economic structures" I have seen proposed are actually recycled versions of old economic structures which failed. Your ideas may be different, but until you tell us what they are, we cannot know.
My experience is that most of the problems with our current system are a result of things implemented in the name of "a new economic structure". Things which just made the problems they claimed to be designed to fix worse.
What I find interesting is that they say this right after the year ends...you know the year where there were reports from many parts of the world about how it was unseasonably cold, all year long? Yet I am supposed to believe it was the warmest year on record?
I am saying, that except for John Kerry saying so, we have little evidence that it happened...and we know that the only basis John Kerry had for claiming it was hearsay from unreliable sources. John Kerry's sources were men who either never served in Vietnam, or served in a capacity where they would not have witnessed such behaviors, let alone been in a position to commit them.
Well, yes, work is starting on building the capacity to pipe the oil to Vancouver because the Obama Administration has made it clear that they are not going to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. The opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline want the tar sands oil to stay in the ground. That is not going to happen. The only question is where does the oil go and how does it get there. Currently it is going to the Gulf Coast by rail. This is an economically and environmentally inefficient method of moving the oil. It would be better to transport the oil, both economically and environmentally, by pipe. The first choice would be to pipe the oil to the refineries it is currently being shipped to by rail, but if the US will not allow that, they are going to pipe it to Vancouver.
Of course the thing many people overlook is that the Keystone XL would also be able to transport the oil being removed from the ground in the Dakotas (mostly North Dakota). It is probably not efficient to build a pipeline just for the North Dakota oil (I may be mistaken on that). If I am correct that means that that oil will continue to be shipped by rail, with the increased risks that come with shipping oil by rail as opposed to by pipeline.
John Kerry testified in front of the Senate that his fellow soldiers had "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war,..." That sounds like vilification to me.
I never said that opposition to war was anti-military and vilifying soldiers, I said that John Kerry vilified soldiers and was anti-military. You may want to look at some of the things he said when he returned from Vietnam.
Well, Democrats thought that his war service and purple hearts were a selling point, but that was because they thought nobody would notice that his tour of duty in Vietnam was ridiculously short and that as soon as he returned he began vilifying the people he served with. The only people who thought Kerry's war service was a strength were people who were as anti-military as John Kerry.
Well, considering that the word "swiftboating" is derived from accusations against John Kerry that were true. when someone says they are being "swiftboated" they are admitting that the attacks against them are based in truth.
Slashdot Mirror
Without knowing the wording of the question, there is no way to evaluate these results. I have seen too many polls reported in ways which distort what the actual results say to buy this one.
I do not misunderstand my place. I think you misunderstand how it works when the mob picks up their pitchforks. If you live comfortably, You seem to think that when the revolution happens that you will be left alone.
There seem to be two mistakes that you are falling into. First, you overestimate how much money it takes to be in the 1%. Second, you think the mob will limit itself to attacking the 1%. When the mob gets started, they will go after the 10% and probably the "30%". I am quite confident that we both fall into that last category.
Further down you leave the impression that you believe that when the revolution happens and the mobs start going after the wealthy they are going to stop with the super-rich. That's not how it works. When the mob starts going after the rich, they are going to start with the merely richer than themselves and the obvious targets among the super-rich. The merely well-to-do are much easier targets than the super-rich.
Guess what? When the mobs start going after the wealthy to redistribute their wealth, you and I will be among their first targets.
Except of course, that he did not speak at an event where David Duke spoke.
He apologized for it because he did not remember one way or the other. He made the mistake of assuming that the "news" media actually checked their facts before they printed their allegations.
Their problem is that they perpetually need to replenish the underclass as it becomes depleted by people pulling themselves up into the middle or upper class.
Yes, but they have been working hard at stopping that with significant success over the last six years. The most interesting thing is that despite the actual evidence people believe this has happened despite the Democrats best efforts rather than because of their efforts. The Democrats say they want to help the poor and downtrodden and people take them at their word despite the constant evidence of the results of their policies.
The only way to find someone who has no 'preconceived position' is to find someone who knows nothing about the topic.
Not really true. Plenty of people know nothing about biology and yet have plenty of preconceived notions about evolutionary theory. The only people without preconceived notions would be newborns.
No, it is definitely true. The person you replied to did NOT say that someone who knows nothing about the topic would not have a preconceived position, merely that ONLY a person who knows nothing about the topic MIGHT have no preconceived position.
In other words, you want someone in that post who does not know anything about the subject. Anyone in the Senate long enough to get this position is going to have formed an opinion on the subject of H-1B visas unless they have been intentionally ignoring the subject. It is not as if Senator Sessions is coming into this position not knowing anything about the subject. He has been on this committee in the past.
Except that he did not SPEAK to the racist group. He spoke to a neighborhood civic association...you know the types of groups which campaigning politicians speak at 5 or 6 a day? The fact that the chairman of that group was a friend of David Duke and had scheduled the David Duke group to meet at the same hotel later that day is not something you can reasonably expect either the Congressman (state legislator at the time) or his aids to know. If they had looked into the background of the civic association at whose meeting he was asked to meet, they would have discovered nothing except a normal neighborhood association. Why would they have looked into who else was meeting in that hotel later that day? My source by the way is the Times-Picayune and I gave the link further up the thread. Furthermore, I do not see any of these people fussing about President Obama associating with Al Sharpton, a much more virulent racist than David Duke (after all, I have never seen any allegations that David Duke stirred up violent protests which led to someone being killed , whereas Al Sharpton has no done it at least twice).
A better link would be this one: http://www.nola.com/politics/i... from the Times-Picayune
Except of course that it turns out that Steve Scalise never spoke at the event sponsored by David Duke. Rather he spoke at an event held by a local civic association (or neighborhood group) at the same hotel where the David Duke group would later meet on the same day.
The Netflix-Comcast situation has been used on Slashdot to argue that Net Neutrality needs to be made the law of the land in the U.S..
So, basically you are saying that we should go back to the system the Framers of the Constitution envisioned. That is not a "new economic structure". Rather it is a return to one which was dismantled.
Define this new economic structure and we can discuss its possible merits as well as its possible flaws. So far, every one of the "new economic structures" I have seen proposed are actually recycled versions of old economic structures which failed. Your ideas may be different, but until you tell us what they are, we cannot know.
My experience is that most of the problems with our current system are a result of things implemented in the name of "a new economic structure". Things which just made the problems they claimed to be designed to fix worse.
Well, yes, things COULD change, but, so far, they haven't.
What I find interesting is that they say this right after the year ends...you know the year where there were reports from many parts of the world about how it was unseasonably cold, all year long? Yet I am supposed to believe it was the warmest year on record?
I am saying, that except for John Kerry saying so, we have little evidence that it happened...and we know that the only basis John Kerry had for claiming it was hearsay from unreliable sources. John Kerry's sources were men who either never served in Vietnam, or served in a capacity where they would not have witnessed such behaviors, let alone been in a position to commit them.
Well, yes, work is starting on building the capacity to pipe the oil to Vancouver because the Obama Administration has made it clear that they are not going to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. The opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline want the tar sands oil to stay in the ground. That is not going to happen. The only question is where does the oil go and how does it get there. Currently it is going to the Gulf Coast by rail. This is an economically and environmentally inefficient method of moving the oil. It would be better to transport the oil, both economically and environmentally, by pipe. The first choice would be to pipe the oil to the refineries it is currently being shipped to by rail, but if the US will not allow that, they are going to pipe it to Vancouver. Of course the thing many people overlook is that the Keystone XL would also be able to transport the oil being removed from the ground in the Dakotas (mostly North Dakota). It is probably not efficient to build a pipeline just for the North Dakota oil (I may be mistaken on that). If I am correct that means that that oil will continue to be shipped by rail, with the increased risks that come with shipping oil by rail as opposed to by pipeline.
John Kerry testified in front of the Senate that his fellow soldiers had "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war,..." That sounds like vilification to me.
What "established facts" are you talking about? Oh that's right, Democratic Party talking points are "established facts".
He was NOT in Vietnam for two and a half years. He was in Vietnam for four months. An typical tour of duty in Vietnam was 1 year.
I never said that opposition to war was anti-military and vilifying soldiers, I said that John Kerry vilified soldiers and was anti-military. You may want to look at some of the things he said when he returned from Vietnam.
Well, Democrats thought that his war service and purple hearts were a selling point, but that was because they thought nobody would notice that his tour of duty in Vietnam was ridiculously short and that as soon as he returned he began vilifying the people he served with. The only people who thought Kerry's war service was a strength were people who were as anti-military as John Kerry.
That is interesting, since all of his crew mates I have heard say they are true.
Well, considering that the word "swiftboating" is derived from accusations against John Kerry that were true. when someone says they are being "swiftboated" they are admitting that the attacks against them are based in truth.