csua.com/24/?incr=1&local=0
Real logins, as well as randomized names really didn't post these messages. There is absolutely no correlation between the aliases used here and the actual users on the system.
If Coulter is such a blight on humanity, such a monument to indecency and all that is wretched in our political culture, what does it say about the political movement that has been running our country for the last six years (at least) that they embrace her so enthusiastically?"
ece \_ Still waiting for someone else to do an actual scientific study that indicates otherwise. So far, all we have seen are politically based claims that the numbers "just can't be." Would you put your faith in my new revolutionary diamond manufacturing plant and invest in it without some kind of proof?
Or did you misparse the previous poster, and are also speaking against J Random Economist's claims about the Lancet's study? The study was peer reviewed by a respected medical editorial board, probably the most respected editorial board in medicine. The critics have been anonymous cranks (like yourself) and politically motivated bloggers with no knowledge of how the scientific process works. Spagat is an expert and he disputes some of the techniques used. One disagreement by a stastician does not invalidate the whole study. The Lancet study is actually one of the most carefully reviewed studies in the history of medicine. So yes, until there is some hard science disputing their findings, I am going to continue to be skeptical of politically motivated critics. dans \_ My issue with the 650k is that it is the top end number and gets quoted as a factual known-good this-is-it number. The original paper published a range of X to Y but we only hear Y The truth is likely in the middle. IIRC the earlier study they did was 8000 bottom end to 100k top end and we heard only the 100k. Yet official number at the time were already higher than their bottom end number. So how can the high end number be any more trust worthy? The truth is much more likely much lower than the oft quoted 650k. This is not to say 200k or whatever deaths are good, but it makes me question the motives of anyone quoting the 650k as fact and not merely the top end of a statistical range. and the number is say 300k, does that affect your thinking about how things have unfolded? in no way to make light of the very large difference in cost to iraqi people ... but again the social aftermath of ww2 was very diff in the us vs. russia, germany, france etc \_ Actually, the original study had a 95% confidence interval from 8k to 192k IIRC, making 100k the center of the peak.
Unless you mean critics amongst the "Fox News" viewer crowd, perhaps. Except for all those scientists who don't agree but every single one of them is obviously an oil company shill divying part of Exxon's $16m/5 years which isn't too smart considering the billions paid to affirm human caused GW.
a hundred thousand people with a well-placed nuke somewhere, OK? You know, we worry about Al Qaeda, and we should, but at the same time, let's not let the teachers unions escape."
H Clinton: 20% Romney: 20% Edwards: 15% Guiliani: 14% Obama: 11% Gore (not runnig): 10% My prediction for 2008: Romney will win because he's not a woman and not black. Do you honestly think that a Yankee is going to sweep the South, especially vs. If the Dumbocrats nominate Hillary, Romney could win, granted. I certainly do not believe that a majority of Southerners are hicks. I think that enough swing voters (about 5% in most states) are strongly enough biased against Yankees that this will change a close race. Why do you believe otherwise, other than your wish that your candidate would be elected? Doesn't that feel better providing some substance to back your statements? It is ridiculous that we're even talking about the elections this early.
Especially this sort of high intensity daily campaign noise we're getting today. I'm tuning out until something more interesting happens than "Hillary Adopts Southern Accent! This is all bullshit and has nothing to do with anything important.
The fact is, if you want to have some kind of influence over the nomination process, you need to get started on it now. If you don't care who the next President of the United States is, why bother even talking about in the motd?
the current "campaigns" are all bullshit you think I don't care about who the next President is? That is why I think the current reporting and noise is just that, noise.
I was in a smallish room full of Bay Area Democratic fund raisers and we listened to Senator Edwards present his case as to why we should support him. Next week we listen to Senator Obama and the week after that Senator Clinton. In early April we will caucus and give an endorsement and at that point probably most or all of us will give the legal maximum donation to their chosen candidate. Multiply this by 50 times and you have a big chunk of the party fundraising already completed by mid-April. Anyone that hasn't been able to raise $10M by May will be finished and will have to drop out. I imagine something similar is going on in the Republican Party.
Or did this come out of the hidden messages in the Bible? The problem is, at some point it's not possible to ramp up new production quickly enough to keep up with ever-increasing demand. We won't run out of oil, but supplies will be increasingly constrained. org like OPEC where members are allowed to sell a certain amount based on their _claimed_ reserves. So by lying and claiming higher reserves they can sell more. Their actual honest estimates of their reserves are secret and likely much lower than their public claims. Thus, unless new fields are started sooner than the Saudis and friends would have us believe we need them, then yes we'll be hosed. Clean burning natural gas and freshwater are used to create synthetic oil, sludge and greenhouse gases on an insane scale.
org and won't provide honest estimates of usable reserves so it doesn't matter much if the world falls 5 years short of getting new production online or 7 or 9 or 12. It is still a limited resource that will eventually run out. I mean, it goes down every year like clockwork (there was a tiny blip around 1986 due to Alaska but that's it). Note that there are more oil wells operating in the United States than the rest of the world COMBINED (500,000 pumping out of 2,000,000 drilled). Oil production is no longer an economic problem, it is a problem with physics and geology. Even if the US never had a drop of native oil (like Japan, France, etc), then we'd just be using nukes for power and likely have more advanced electric cars.
prices get high enough, then US oil production will climb. In real terms, I would bet oil prices are not at record highs. In fact, I remember just a few years back I was buying gas for $1/gallon, which is probably less than any time over the last 30 years when adjusting for inflation. It is not that cheap at the moment, but not much has changed over the last 5 years except for politics. Oil prices WERE the highest ever during the 1970s crisis, yet oil production dropped. You can't drill 200,000 new wells overnight, and besides there are no new giant oil fields being discovered to drill anyhow.
com/yrtors \_ Synopsis: Clinton=surplus, Bush=deficit, Republican=bad. Are you one of those "Politics began with Clinton newbies who's been around only the last 14 years" to answer that? distinguish between liabilities and payments) 1 medicare liability >> SS liability 2 non-discretionary entitlements >> defense liability 3 holub ought not be dismissing other people's writings when unaware of either the details of the accounting used or the $numbers involved.
The Comptroller General is a Clinton appointee, but is hardly a communist or a partisan hack. Another is to describe military spending as discretionary and Medicare as long-term liability; military spending has alwyas grown faster than federal health care spending, and fundamentally represents a liability due to current military posture. What is meaningless is the distinction between Medicare as a liability and the military as discretionary spending...
|
http://csua.com/feed/