Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Religious Dick

Pages: 1 ... 70 71 [72] 73 74 ... 77
1066
3DHS / Re: I almost blew Gatorade out my nose...
« on: April 06, 2007, 01:08:11 PM »
Quote from: The_Professor on April 06, 2007, 12:38:20 PM
So, to stir the pot some: is it probable that children in these type of relationships will grow up to be healthy in all respects?

I've seen kids with awful parents turn out great, and kids with great parents end up in prison. How a kid turns out appears to be the luck of the draw more than anything else. I expect that will be as true in these cases as any others.

1067
3DHS / Re: When progress is deemed a failure
« on: April 02, 2007, 07:19:55 PM »
http://web.mac.com/cynthiadelmar/iWeb/MickWare/News/A3E3E0C4-D255-47FC-8821-606048513522.html

1068
3DHS / High-end dog shop's sign raises neighbors' hackles
« on: April 02, 2007, 02:00:44 PM »
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/304644_highmaintenance22.html

High-end dog shop's sign raises neighbors' hackles

Thursday, February 22, 2007

By ANDREA JAMES
P-I REPORTER

If dogs desired sparkly jewelry, glittery makeup and sweet smells just like many little human girls, they'd feel like princesses in this newly opened Wallingford store.

Luckily for the founders of High Maintenance Bitch, which sells high-end pooch products, little princesses eventually grow into women dog owners -- preferably with spare cash and a strong affinity for double-entendres.
    

"Our company is probably the most high-end pet brand in the world," co-founder Lori Pacchiano said.

Though Paris Hilton and Tyra Banks may coo over products such as Gel-ous Bitch bath gel and Street Walker paw cleanser, the store has drawn the ire of some Wallingford residents who dislike the sign that hangs outside the company's flagship boutique.

"I am probably the most progressive liberal person in the world and I am personally offended by the sign," said Janet Stillman, executive director of the Wallingford Neighborhood Office. "It's so blatant and so in your face."

"Bitch" is the most prominent word on the sign, and it can be seen clearly from North 45th Street and Wallingford Avenue North -- a main intersection.

Pacchiano plans to meet today with the Wallingford Chamber of Commerce to address concerns, she said.

About a dozen people have complained, said Kara Ceriello, chamber co-president. Though she intends to support the boutique, she said that Wallingford residents are naturally educated, opinionated and vocal.
    
"It is going to be a hot issue again when we get to our Wallingford Kiddie Parade and Street Fair," she said.

Stillman fears that the sign will ruin family photos of the summer parade.

"It's the kind of sign that might've got by on Capitol Hill because Capitol Hill is the way it is. But Wallingford is not like that," she said.

"Walk by there with your 5-year-old and try to explain why that sign is there. Half of the sign is made up of the word 'bitch.' "

But if Pacchiano and her brother, Ryan Pacchiano, have their way, the word will be appearing in malls across the country. The company is interviewing angel investors and hopes to make the brand name as recognizable as Victoria's Secret.

Pacchiano said one of her goals is reclaiming the word "bitch" -- so that it only means female dog and not something derogatory toward women.

"Our store is a dog store, but the concept and philosophy is directed specifically toward women," she said.

At a cost of about $200,000 each, the Pacchianos hope to open 10 stores over the next three years. "We want to be known for growing from Seattle," Lori said.

Lori, 36, and Ryan, 27, started making pet feather boas in their grandmother's North Seattle garage five years ago. They were inspired by Lola, Lori's Boston terrier.

Today, the brand is sold internationally and the products are included in the celebrity gift baskets at the Golden Globe Awards. The Wallingford store displays photos of star customers such as Barbara Walters and Debra Messing. The products are all "human food grade" quality and made by Puget Sound-area manufacturers.

Through angel investors, the Pacchianos hope to grab a bigger piece of the growing luxury pet products market. American spending on pet goods and medicines grew to about $9.3 billion in 2006, much of that growth in the luxury market, according to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association.

In January, High Maintenance Bitch moved its flagship boutique, owned by Jean Powell, from Lynnwood to Wallingford. The Pacchianos also retracted their trademark licensing agreements and closed a shop in Poulsbo and one on Capitol Hill.

Customer flow into the Wallingford boutique has been steady, they said.
    
On Wednesday afternoon, 3-year-old Italian greyhound Annie -- short for Princess Annabella -- ran into the store and peed on the floor. Then she looked into a stand-up oval mirror, adjusted to four-legged height.

Her owner, Suzanne Hansen, 35, of Bellevue, planned on buying a collar and body spray. But first, staffers showed off the paw nail polish and Whiskara -- a sparkly mascara for dogs.

"She's sparkly. Sparkly dog," Hansen said, bouncing Annie on each syllable.

Like most customers, Hansen said the "bitch" concept is funny. "People who are in the dog world seem to know that bitch is a female dog," she said.

To ban the sign would be a violation of free speech, said Alan Justad, spokesman for the city of Seattle's Department of Planning and Development. The city regulates size and placement, but not language, he said.

Five companies in Washington, including High Maintenance Bitch, have the word in their names, including Bimbo's Bitchin' Burrito Kitchen LLC, according to the secretary of state's corporations database.

High Maintenance's former locations drew some scrutiny, but not enough to shut down the shops.

Stuart Leidner, executive director of the Greater Poulsbo Chamber of Commerce, said that a few people complained about the store when it was located there, but there wasn't a "huge public outcry."

Lynnwood city planning manager Ron Hough said that outrage surfaced and evaporated. "It stirred the attention of a few people -- always people who'd go by and saw the sign and covered their kids' eyes real quick," Hough said. "... We didn't consider it obscene or illegal in anyway."

Wallingford residents walking by on Wednesday had mixed reactions.

"That's terrible. I don't think it should be there," said Claudia Wyman, 61, of Ballard as she passed by the sign. "Who put it there and why?"

Her grandson, Chris Elwell, 15, said, "People might get the wrong idea, but I know they're not using it, like, the wrong way."

P-I reporter Andrea James can be reached at 206-448-8124 or andreajames@seattlepi.com.

© 1998-2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

1069
3DHS / Re: QOTD
« on: March 27, 2007, 12:55:38 PM »
"Once upon a time, people who wanted limitless government and made trouble around the globe were called Communists. Today, of course, they’re known as conservatives. If that’s just semantics, call me anti-semantic."

--Joseph Sobran

1070
3DHS / Re: 'Atlas Shrugged' – 50 years later
« on: March 20, 2007, 05:59:34 PM »
Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on March 20, 2007, 03:53:34 PM
Atlas Shrugged was way too long, its characters cartoonish, and the plot contrived.
 

All of which is true enough. But, like pointing out that technically Bob Dylan couldn't carry a tune, it rather misses the point.

1071
3DHS / The surprising truth about America's infant-mortality rate
« on: March 19, 2007, 02:54:45 PM »
medical examiner
Baby Gap
The surprising truth about America's infant-mortality rate.
By Darshak Sanghavi
Posted Friday, March 16, 2007, at 7:10 AM ET

Last year, a widely distributed report from the group Save the Children, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, tied the United States with Malta and Slovakia for the second-worst infant-mortality rate among developed nations (at about six per 1,000 live births). "I'm always amazed to see where the United States is," a Rand researcher said of the list. "We are the wealthiest country in the world," a Save the Children spokesperson agreed, yet many "are not getting the health care they need."

Comparing infant mortality rates between countries is fraught with uncertainty—after all, it's hard to argue that every country's figures are reliable. But it's still worth asking what more we can do to stop babies from dying. Defined as death before one year of age, infant mortality frequently gets framed in the United States as a problem of insufficient health-care funding. In December, for example, a New York Times column blamed it on the lack of a single-payer health insurer. However, a closer look reveals the counterintuitive possibility that high infant mortality in the United States might be the unintended side effect of increased spending on medical care.

Infant deaths in poor nations are roughly six times more common than in developed areas and result mainly from easily treated infections like diarrhea in the first few months. By contrast, the majority of deaths in developed countries result from extreme prematurity or birth defects that kill a newborn in the first few days or weeks of life. According to a 2002 analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least a third of all infant mortality in the United States arises from complications of prematurity; other studies assert the figure is closer to half. Thus—at the risk of oversimplifying—infant mortality in the United States principally is a problem of premature birth, which today complicates just over one in 10 pregnancies.

To reduce infant mortality, then, we need to prevent premature births, and if that fails, improve care of premature babies once born. (Prematurity is also linked to other problems; for example, it's the leading cause of mental retardation and cerebral palsy in children.) But modern medicine isn't good at preventing prematurity—just the opposite. Better and more affordable medical care actually has worsened the rate of prematurity, and likely the rate of infant mortality, by making fertility treatment widespread. According to a 2006 Institute of Medicine report, the numbers of women using assistive reproductive technology doubled from 1996 to 2002. At least half of their pregnancies culminated in multiple births (twins or more), which are at high risk of premature delivery.

Meanwhile, no amount of money or resources seems to reduce the rate of preterm births. Take prevention: Of numerous strategies, an inexhaustive list includes enhanced prenatal care, improved maternal nutrition, treatment of vaginal infections, better maternal dental care, monitors to detect early labor, bed rest, better hydration, and programs for smoking cessation. But, as well described in an erudite 1998 review in the New England Journal of Medicine by researchers at the University of Alabama, none of these strategies has had a substantial impact on the risk of preterm birth in clinical trials. (Of course, some of them, like better prenatal care, may be good for other reasons.) Despite a doubling of health-care spending as a portion of the gross domestic product since 1981, the rate of preterm birth has jumped 30 percent.

If preventing early birth is impossible, can we improve treatment of preemies? One promising way to reduce death after premature birth is a dirt-cheap steroid shot for mothers in preterm labor. Endorsed for over a decade by the National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the shot is one of the only maneuvers proven to help preemies before they are born. The injection jump-starts the fetus's lungs, so the baby is better prepared to breathe when born. Unfortunately, because of substandard practice, at some hospitals only about half of eligible women get the shot.

That leaves lots of sick preemies for the neonatologist. Most preemies depend on advanced neonatal care for survival. And there have been advances, particularly the discovery of surfactant to treat immature lungs. However, just as better funding for infertility treatment worsened premature-birth rates, more money quite possibly may harm the quality of neonatal intensive care.

How can that be? Today, neonatal intensive care is extremely lucrative, on average costing tens of thousands of dollars per preterm child. Neonatologists are among the highest paid pediatric subspecialists, and neonatal intensive-care units (NICUs, for short) are hospital cash cows—which is why the units are proliferating wildly nationwide. Yet in a startling 2002 New England Journal of Medicine study, David Goodman and his colleagues showed that the regional supply of neonatologists and NICUs bore no relation to actual need, implying that some doctors and hospitals set up shop simply because there was money to be made. More disturbingly, areas with more beds and doctors don't have lower infant-mortality rates. The authors ominously suggest that "infants might be harmed by the availability of higher levels of resources." They argue that the availability of a NICU may mean that infants with less-serious illnesses may be admitted to one and then "subjected to more intensive diagnostic and therapeutic measures, with the attendant risks."

Too many NICUs are also bad for babies because hospitals that handle a high volume of sick preemies have better outcomes. A 1996 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association confirmed this, concluding that concentrating high-risk deliveries in a smaller number of hospitals could reduce infant-death rates without increasing costs, and other studies have since concurred. (Increasing evidence suggests that experienced, high-volume centers may also save more full-term newborns with major birth defects, like congenital heart problems.)

Throwing money at unproven programs for preventing prematurity, or at cash-cow NICUs, won't improve America's infant-morality rate. Instead, it's critical to follow the data—which suggest that we need fewer, not more, hospitals to take care of the sickest babies. One reasonable suggestion is to cut funding for neonatal intensive care, since the money now is too good to encourage economies of scale (i.e., a few hospitals with high-volume NICUs). Another strategy, endorsed by patient-safety organizations like the Leapfrog Group, is for insurers to steer patients only to high-volume centers. Less money and less patient choice sound heretical—but, in this case, eminently sensible.
Darshak Sanghavi is a pediatric cardiologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. He is the author of A Map of the Child: A Pediatrician's Tour of the Body.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2161899/

Copyright 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC

1072
3DHS / Sun May Be Warming Both Earth and Mars
« on: March 04, 2007, 01:21:50 PM »
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Planets' Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

No Greenhouse

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

1073
3DHS / Re: Kicking the Crotch of America....
« on: March 03, 2007, 05:25:50 PM »
Quote from: BT on March 02, 2007, 12:25:35 AM
And the ones doing the kicking?

I would say largely most other conservatives, given that it's with their support Giuliani is leading the polls.

Quote from: BT on March 02, 2007, 12:25:35 AM
Rudy isn't that much different than Bush, except he may be more eloquent.

And probably a bit smarter, too. While his stated positions may not be all that different from Bush's, I seem to remember Bush's stated position was that the US practice a "humbler foreign policy". While Giuliani may be promoting a guns-a-blazin' foreign policy along the lines of Bush's, I'd expect he's probably too astute a manager to create as much of a mess as Bush has.

It took Nixon to go to China, after all......

1074
3DHS / Kicking the Crotch of America.... Round II
« on: March 01, 2007, 05:37:44 PM »
Giuliani Will Meet The Right

BY RYAN SAGER
March 1, 2007
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/49557

When Mayor Giuliani takes the stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C., at noon tomorrow, it will mark the end of a long, strange, fitful anti-courtship between the man increasingly known as "Rudy" and a venerable right-wing institution that just doesn't know what to make of a crime-fighting, welfare-reforming, abortion-supporting, drag-wearing foreign-policy hawk.

CPAC is the conservative movement's annual family reunion. Two years ago, Mr. Giuliani was the black sheep. Though he won the yearly CPAC presidential straw poll in 2005, measuring the mood primarily of younger convention-goers, he was decidedly persona non grata with the higher-ups. The former mayor, known for his leadership after the September 11, 2001, attacks, asked to speak — he even offered to waive his usual fee — but was flatly rebuffed. "I would assume he wanted to come here to boost his conservative credentials, but we didn't think that would be useful," David Keene, the head of the American Conservative Union, which runs CPAC, sniffed at the time to a Rudy-friendly columnist, Deroy Murdock.

That, of course, was in the heady days after President Bush's reelection, when conservatives thought the good times would never stop rolling. Cut to a year later: In 2006, as the GOP's fortunes began to sag, Mr. Keene extended Mr. Giuliani an invitation, but it was a grudging (and last-minute) one. "A lot of people wanted to hear him on the terror question, so we invited him," Mr. Keene told me at the time — taking care to add, "If you ask me if he's a viable candidate for anything: no." Mr. Giuliani chose to stay away, citing prior engagements. Mr. Keene said the mayor had a standing invitation for 2007. Cut to this month, with the Republican Party in free fall — Congress lost, Mr. Bush's approval ratings in the gutter, and the fortunes of more conventional conservatives such as Senator McCain of Arizona and the former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, fading — and it could hardly be a more auspicious time for the now-indisputable front-runner for the Republican nomination to come face-to-face with the wary base. But wait. If the base is really so wary, how exactly is Mr. Giuliani so far ahead in the polls?

The fact is, the base is already fairly comfortable with Mr. Giuliani and is quite seriously considering his candidacy. It's primarily a few gatekeepers — such as Mr. Keene, Focus on the Family head James Dobson, and Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission — who stand truly dead-set against him. And these gatekeepers are becoming increasingly irrelevant in a party that wants to find its way out of the political wilderness and, to some extent, blames the more extreme elements of the religious right for leading it into the woods in the first place.

The polling on this point is unambiguous. (It has been for well over a year now, but people are only now finally beginning to believe it.) Mr. Giuliani is far and away the front-runner in the race for the Republican nomination. And that support comes not from moderate or liberal Republicans, but from conservatives — including the white evangelicals who have made up such an important part of Mr. Bush's base.

Is Mr. Giuliani going to run away with the nomination? The early signs certainly point in that direction. He's leading Mr. McCain in Iowa; he's in spitting distance of Mr. McCain in New Hampshire, where the Arizona senator made his mark with the help of political independents in 2000; he's polling strong down South (though trailing in South Carolina), and the prospect of a California-New York-Florida primary in early February 2008 is nothing but good news for America's mayor.

Meanwhile, Mr. Giuliani seems to have a certain charisma, a certain likability factor, that's going to make it hard for anyone else to catch up. And that's not a matter of opinion. It's a measurable phenomenon. A Gallup poll released at the beginning of last month had some truly astonishing numbers. Don't tell Al Sharpton, but Mr. Giuliani is considered "more likeable" than Mr. McCain by Republicans and Republican leaners by 74% to 21% (a spread of 53 points). These same folks say Mr. Giuliani would be "better in a crisis" by a margin of 40 points. They think he "would do more to unite the country" by 37 points.

The reception Mr. Giuliani gets at CPAC tomorrow will be telling. Two years ago, even a year ago, he could have gotten a hero's welcome — a thank you for his service on September 11 and little scrutiny otherwise, with the presidential contest so far away. Not so here in early 2007. By the time this crowd meets again, the primary could be all but decided. Tomorrow will be a time for sizing up, a time for kicking the tires, a time for some tough questions from a room filled with people who could hardly have imagined a former mayor of New York City being the frontrunner for the Republican nomination just a few years ago.

Because, after all, the conservative movement has to begin dealing with the fact that Mr. Giuliani is now not only the "viable candidate" Mr. Keene denied he was, but far more — he is the front-runner.

    Mr. Sager is the online editor of The New York Sun. He can be reached at rsager@nysun.com.

1075
3DHS / Re: Majority view (plus)
« on: February 28, 2007, 01:48:56 AM »
Quote from: Plane on February 28, 2007, 01:34:58 AM
   When Govenor Barnes ecided to change the Geogia flag , he knew that it was the right thing to do and he didn't care that he couldn't convince a majority of Georgians.

     He did the right thing spiting most Georgians and giveig the governorshi to a republicn for the first time since the Johnson administration.


       He went to Massituchets and was given a profile in couage award.

Get back to us when somebody nominates George Bush for a Profile In Courage Award.

Time has discredited minority opinions at least as often as it's vindicated them. At this point, I don't think there are many doubts left that history is going to do about as much for supporters of the Iraqi war as it has for supporters of the Vietnam war.

1076
3DHS / Re: Majority view (plus)
« on: February 28, 2007, 01:42:09 AM »
Quote from: Plane on February 28, 2007, 01:29:47 AM
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2003/mar/030304.liasson.html

That's still not a poll, with data indicating sample size, margin of error, text of the questions asked, etc. It's a discussion of a poll. But even taking it a face value, it still indicates rather tepid support on the part of the public:

Quote
Support for President Bush's policy of using military force to get rid of Saddam Hussein is still strong. In the latest CNN-Gallup poll, 59 percent supported sending US troops to Iraq. In the latest CBS poll, 66 percent approved. But ask the question, `Should the US take military action fairly soon, or should it wait to give the UN inspectors more time,' and you get a more complicated answer. In the CBS poll, 62 percent say give the inspectors more time. In the CNN poll, 40 percent approve of going to war without UN approval, but that number jumps to 80 percent with another UN resolution. Keating Holland, the polling director at CNN, cautions that these polls are not necessarily a predictor of public opposition if the US proceeds without UN approval, as appears more and more likely.


And, IIRC, the US did indeed proceed without the UN approval public support was contingent on.

1077
3DHS / Re: Majority view (plus)
« on: February 28, 2007, 01:25:20 AM »
Quote from: sirs on February 28, 2007, 01:11:41 AM
Quote from: Religious Dick on February 28, 2007, 12:52:24 AM
Quote from: sirs on February 28, 2007, 12:34:25 AM
Strange RD...when I look at the archives of polls, like Rasmussen, Gallup, USA-Today, ABC News, etc., etc., etc, back when the war on terror began, they consistently demonstrated broad widespread SUPPORT.  1 ABC poll has Bush as the 3rd greatest President ever.  And even your Times' poll demonstrates MAJORITY support, as if that supposedly refutes my recollection.  Is their a reason your helping to make my point?

Oh, and it wasn't just Bush promoting Saddam's WMD.  That'd also include pretty much every Democrat when Clinton was promoting them, and pretty much every Eurpean country's leader and intelligence service doing the same, UN included.

Want a do-over?

No, I don't need a do-over. How about some links to those polls that you claim support your position?

They're in the archives of the polls I referenced.   There are a whole slew (if that's a word) of them, starting in '02.  Rasmussen, NYTimes, Gallup, etc.  Again, too many to count.  I'd start there, since that's where I started.  And you did catch even your poll produced majority support for the war in Iraq.  Still don't want that do-over?  No biggie, you helped make my point, and its appreciated

You stated support was "overwhelming". 54% is hardly overwhelming, it's barely a majority, and a majority well within the margin of error at that. And the links I listed include polls from NYTimes and Gallup, among others (but not Rasmussen).

Further, I follow the polls quite closely, and I have no recollection of any set of polls with a sufficient sample size to be considered an accurate representation to say any such thing.

If there are too many to count, why haven't you yet been able to produce a link to single one?


1078
3DHS / Re: Majority view (plus)
« on: February 28, 2007, 12:52:24 AM »
Quote from: sirs on February 28, 2007, 12:34:25 AM
Strange RD...when I look at the archives of polls, like Rasmussen, Gallup, USA-Today, ABC News, etc., etc., etc, back when the war on terror began, they consistently demonstrated broad widespread SUPPORT.  1 ABC poll has Bush as the 3rd greatest President ever.  And even your Times' poll demonstrates MAJORITY support, as if that supposedly refutes my recollection.  Is their a reason your helping to make my point?

Oh, and it wasn't just Bush promoting Saddam's WMD.  That'd also include pretty much every Democrat when Clinton was promoting them, and pretty much every Eurpean country's leader and intelligence service doing the same, UN included.

Want a do-over?

No, I don't need a do-over. How about some links to those polls that you claim support your position?

1079
3DHS / Re: 77% of American Jews Oppose the War
« on: February 27, 2007, 10:40:34 PM »
Quote from: The_Professor on February 27, 2007, 12:45:31 AM
Quote from: Religious Dick on February 26, 2007, 10:03:13 PM
Quote from: BT on February 26, 2007, 07:21:41 PM
Quote
77% of American Jews oppose the Iraq war

This doesn't ring true based on personal interactions. Perhaps you have a link?


I guess that must depend on your circle of friends. In my part of the country, I don't even know a single Republican that supports the war, let alone anyone else.


People really live in the mountains of western Idaho?

Not only that - believe it or not, people even live north of the Mason-Dixon line. Lots of 'em. You'd be surprised.

1080
3DHS / Re: Majority view (plus)
« on: February 27, 2007, 10:37:44 PM »
Quote from: sirs on February 27, 2007, 06:43:01 PM
So, when nearly every poll was indicating overwhelming support of our efforts initially, that apparently means nothing.  But a poll now means so much more?


And just when did nearly every poll indicate overwhelming support? I don't seem to be able to find that in the history of the polling data. In fact, the Time/CNN poll from the week of Feb. 19-20 2003, the week Iraq was invaded, showed only 54% of Americans supported a ground invasion of Iraq. That's hardly overwhelming, especially when you consider that this was a time frame when the Bush administration was promoting it's assertion that Saddam had WMD's, and visions of mushroom clouds were dancing in Condi Rice's head. The "overwhelming support" the Bush-bots keep trying to assert ("don't blame us - everyone else supported the war too!" NOT!) has never existed. Check the data yourself.

http://pollingreport.com/iraq10.htm
http://pollingreport.com/iraq9.htm
http://pollingreport.com/iraq8.htm

Quote from: sirs on February 27, 2007, 06:43:01 PM
Pathetic

You're tellin' me!

Pages: 1 ... 70 71 [72] 73 74 ... 77