You can use statistics to prove anything. You can omit certain numbers,
include an extreme number and leave out certain information.
For example, the comparison on how many American soldier deaths after the
Iraq war vs after WWII: Well the author leaves out all the context, and
leaves out the fact that the world is not the same. The article is aimed
at fooling people unaware of the fallacies of using statistics this way.
For what it's worth, I think bush (yes, lowercase) is a blithering fool,
manipulated by the extremists in his cabinet, and utterly incapable of
leading the country towards betterment (i.e., our social security system
is mathematically proven to be headed towards disaster, but bush just
gave the rich an unnecessary tax cut instead of fixing the system).
Of course, there are people who think differently than I :-)...
Here we go with the class warfare balony again. Just who are those damned rich? How
much money do they need anyhow? Maybe we
should set the national wage to $100,000.00 then tax/refund what ever is necessary to
arrive at that figure. How long do you think
that the rich will continue to invest in the economy? This is why communism is
doomed to failure, and has, in fact, failed
everywhere it has been tried.
It is amazing that Russia now has Steve Forbes' flat tax and we have the Soviet's
progressive tax. At least Putin understands
This is not the forum to prove it either way, at the end of the day it's just
a conflict of opinions. So I won't get into that, strong an opinion as I
I will recognize that you have a valid opinion on this as well. I will not,
though, get into a war over it.
Hey, here's a point of agreement... A flat tax would do me fine.
It's like the old saying -- "There are lies, damn lies ... and statistics".
I don't think the article was an attempt to represent American opinion. I
think it was pointing out information. As far as whether most Americans
would be nooding or shaking their heads when they read the information is
As the national politicians are well aware, the country is very evenly split
between Democrats and Republicans these days. The party that wins the
presidency is the one that doesn't lose it's members to a 3rd party
candidate. (Perot & Buchanon during Clinton years & Nadar during Bush).
Bush has to hype terrorism because that's his angle for keeping Republicans
in line (and you can be sure that events will lead to it being center stage
come the next election). How else can Bush keep conservatives voting for him
when he shows no fiscal responsibility with his deficit spending, greatly
increases the intrusion of the federal government through federal education
programs and medicine entitlements, does nothing to protect blue collar jobs
or discourage overseas outsourcing, and throws open American borders to
illegal immigration in order to pander to the hispanic vote?
Maybe Osama's Evil Plan is to _not_ attack America during the election
campaign ? It's the most damage he could do to Bush.
The absolute best thing for the Bush campaign is a car bomb against
disposable American grunts (and preferably a cute blonde BAM or two)
somewhere foreign, a day before the vote. It would give him a a
(cont. conspiracy_theories/maine ...)
Maybe not. Like all conspiracy theories, this one has a huge hole: many
Americans are getting downright unhappy about the number of deaths in this
"easy" war. Add a dozen or so more the day before elections, and it's quite
possible that Bush will retire early.
Now, I'll let you explain to the American public what "BAM" is. As a former
Marine of a non-PC era, I know better than to stick my foot in that one.
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine
Noel Hegan wrote:
To be fair, the last statistic says it all.
To about half of this country Bush and those people are an embarrassment
and would agree with the tenor of the article. The other half don't know
any better and would agree with anything they're told.
Then you fell right down into condescension and insult. Yep, anybody
who disagrees with you is a moron and an idiot -- a gullible idiot at
Of course nobody who might disagree with the tenor of the article
could have a valid, well-reasoned view of political events and current
events, could they? No, they have to be led sheep, there is no other
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:24:08 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:
The microchip was a direct result of the space program, and is the basis
for all our modern electronics - computers, cell phones, home
entertainment, home appliances, automobiles, etc. It was developed
because of the need for miniturization and reduced weight. There were
many other inventions in technology and medicine as well. I suspect we
would have eventually developed all the things that came out of this, but
at a diminished rate - maybe years, maybe decades. And as we all know,
time is money - every day without a new business/industry making profits
to be taxed and employees in high paying jobs to be taxed is lost revenue.
I'll buy the second part of your statement. I'm not at all sure the microchip
was a direct result of the space race, though miniaturization was certainly an
emphasis there. But the transistor, something of an early microchip, existed
before we really entered the space race. I'd like to check up on that before I
get into an argument I can't win, but don't have time right now. I do know that
in '60, the minimal autopilots available for military helicopters were tube
types early in the year, and switched to circuit boards and transistors later,
at least as far as reaching the troops was concerned (I went through several
weeks of training at MCAF Santa Ana because of that and a couple other
Of course, it's always a good idea to remember that until recent years, the
Marine Corps got the short end of the stick when it came to military supplies.
I'm told that's changed recently, but, then, I'm also told mess duty is a thing
of the past, with civilians doing the dirty work. Amazing if true.
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:32:02 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:
You are correct on the transistor - it was developed in the late forties
or early fifties, but it's a huge jump from a transistor to a microchip
with thousands or millions of transistors and the accompanying several
orders of magnitude reduction in speed, size and weight.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.