The recent history of Australia seems he best verified and worthwhile Data that applies to the situation here in the States. If (as I do), one extrapoles the results ten fold to estimate the result here...it is still dramatic, though the research on societal effect is split.
You can't apply another countries study to this country. What works there may not work here.
You are correct, thus my " opinion " that this may be the best data we can use....not the expected result.
Let's bring this to a vote. I want to know who all of the enemies of the US people are. A vote for this is a vote for tyranny. So bring it on. We can use an additional reminder for who our enemies are. This vote will do it.
I am not sure what "study" you are referring to, but generally in actual scientific study, people don't withhold data like that (and the government doesn't censor it/can't even when they fund it).
I am sorry but if you believe they don't sensor it you need to look again. The Federal Reserve Study in 1991 on loan practices of banks. One of those stats was a person credit score regardless of race this was never part of the study. Along with other factors.
Now to give the Fed credit they did state this when they released the data. Though Politicians and the Media put a discrimination spin on it. A made it look like bank were discriminating against minorities. So any study that is released to the general public again has a party spin put to the numbers and people believe the spin. The numbers maybe true but it makes little difference when a Politician is adding their own how horrible these numbers are spin on it. When in fact they are not as bad as they look.
A great example is Global Warming. You can find studies that say we are cause global warming to accelerate. Yet they is a study out there to oppose that view. Yet you here certain politicians cry about how bad global warming is. Then some are saying Global warming really.
So if you think a study can't be done to oppose another studies findings then you and I disagree on this point.
Agreed:
"Number of Democrats voting for the AWB: 50/53 (94.3%)
Number of Republicans voting for the AWB: 45/47 (95.7%)
Yes, among Republicans in the Senate, a higher percentage supported the AWB than Democrats!
Republicans:
Richard Shelby (AL), Frank Murkowski, Ted Stevens (AK), JOHN MCCAIN (AZ), Christopher Bond (MO), Conrad Burns (MT), Judd Gregg, Bob Smith (NH), Pete Domenici (NM), Alfonse D'Amato (NY), Duncan Faircloth, Jesse Helms (NC), Don Nickles (OK), Robert Packwood (OR), Arlen Specter (PA), John Chafee (RI), J. Thurmond (SC), Larry Pressler (SD), Kay Hutchison (TX), George Brown, Ben Campbell (CO), William Roth (DE), Connie MAck (FL), Paul Coverdell (GA), Larry Craig, Dirk Kempthorne (ID), Daniel Coats, Richard Lugar (IN), Charles Grassley (IA), Bob Dole, Nancy Kassebaum (KS), Mitch McConnell (KY), William Cohen (ME), Thad Cochran, Trent Lott (MS), Robert Bennett, Orrin Hatch (UT), James Jeffords (VT), John Warner (VA), T. Gorton (WA), Alan Simpson, Malcolm Wallop (WY)
Democrats:
Howell Heflin (AL) Dennis DeConcini (AZ), Dale Bumpers, David Pryor (AR) Barara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein (CA), Max Baucus (MT), J. Exon, J. Kerrey (NE), Richard Bryan, Harry Reid (NV), William Bradley, Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Jef Bingaman (NM), Daniel Moynihan (NY), John Glenn, Howard Metzenbaum (OH), David Boren (OK), Harris Wofford (PA), Claiborne Pell (RI), Ernest Hollings (SC), Tom Daschle (SD), Harlan Matthews, James Sasser (TN), Chris Dodd, Joe Lieberman (CT), Joe Biden (DE), Bob Graham (FL), Sam Nunn (GA), Daniel Akaka, Daniel Inouye (HI), Carol Braun (IL), Thomas Harkin (IA), Wendell Ford (KY), John Breaux, John Johnston (LA), George Mitchell (ME), Barbara Mikulski, Paul Sarbanes (MD), Edward Kennedy, John Kerry (MA), Carl Levin, Don Riegle (MI), Paul Wellstone (MN), Pat Leahy (VT), Charles Robb (VA), Patty Murray (WA), Robert Byrd, John Rockefeller (WV), Herbert Kohl (WI)
Republicans voting against:
David Durenberger (MN),Mark Hatfield (OR)
Democrats voting against:
Paul Simon (IL), Russell Feingold (WI)
Not voting: Byron Dorgan - Democrat (ND)
http://bsalert.com/artsearch.php?fn=2&as=2471&dt=1"
Awesome: the Enemies List needs updating
The enemies list needs to be updated. Don't you agree?
The enemies list needs to be updated. Don't you agree?
I loved your description I needed a good laugh thanks :giggle:. Been a hell of a night and shaping up to be a tough weekend.
Naive? Yes, you are.
Yes you are. I can describe all of your words above with one short phrase, you are naive.
Am I naive because I do not think I have enemies?
~Or~
Because I do not see evil spirits, demons, conspiracies, or marxist socialist Muslim dog eating Gramma killers that wish to dominate the world with superpowered death rays embedded in goldfish.
Gun violence research?
Who cannot look and easily see that handguns are responsible from 60 to 75% of the violence. The number of suicides, the number of homicides, what cultural decay can be seen where gun violence occurs, a common denominator being no father in the home for example.
Why do we need to do research, we know what the problems are and we know we're too afraid to confront them. This is political poppycock and you've fallen right for it.
Reckon most in towers 1 and 2 or on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania didn't know they had enemies either.
I second misterveritis' opinion, naive doesn't help anyone.
If you say so....okay. I do however find it interesting that the term "Personal Enemies", seems to include worldwide terrorists I have never met and likely have no idea who I am.
I'm very sure many in the World Trade Centers had never met Mohammed Atta....and Atta didn't know them either. Bet many al-Qaeda affiliated groups who planned and carried out 9-11 attacks in Benghazi didn't know the Ambassador....nor did he know them.
You may find it interesting, it's actually the exact same in any terror attack. Hasan didn't know his victims, the Newtown shooter didn't know his victims, Tim McVeigh didn't know his victims, nor did they know him.......those victims probably were naive to the fact that evil exists and that there is violence that could be perpetrated on you.
They were naive to the fact that they were being targeted as well, why would you find that interesting. I find your confusion here a tad odd, it's rather commonplace in these incidents.
Why do we need to do research, we know what the problems are and we know we're too afraid to confront them. This is political poppycock and you've fallen right for it.
This is not politics. It is very much the opposite of what politics is today. Science has proven to be better than our intuitions. I am not going to argue with you on that. You can believe what you want, but I'll just say I find it quite upsetting and somewhat egotistical of you to think you just have everything figured out especially if it isn't based on real, scientific methodology and study (and even if it were you should not feel that way). And no, that's not political poppycock- BOTH parties/sides still largely use arguments similar to YOURS (unscientific) in trying to convince people.
Yes.....quite upsetting is what you should become should someone point out some politically driven study throwing money at any problem is "scientific" and trumping human "intuition."
Wonder if this 'study' you suggest will take history into account....like when eveyrone owned an assault rifle, people aremed to the teeth......and yet no politically motivated charades banning weapons were necessary, certainly no one was covering their political motives with some science nonsense.
Where you find my opinion "somewhat egotistical", I find yours wholesale political poppycock.
You don't understand science if you think science can be politically driven (the moment it becomes politically driven, it stops being science). You don't understand Federal scientific funding for basic research if you think it is politically driven.
You are the one who thinks you know everything- that it is your way of the highway. So yes, I define that as egotistical. It is not your opinion I have an issue with- it is the insistence that it is more than opinion- that you are right, just because of some loose correlations you have. I don't know whether or not you know it, but the other side has the same type of correlations. Which is why stronger studies are needed.
Similar threads
