Jump to content

Random News Observations


Recommended Posts

I don't think it's inevitable nor do I think this exonerates anyone (including any actual looter) from his role in similar events in Iraq. Why do you think it does?
Merely preparing the groundwork for destroying the inevitable democrat talking point that they are experts of foreign policy by example of Egypt Syria and Libya.Here's more:Protesters in Syriaobamathankyou.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The most interesting thing about the worlds largest beaver dam is that it was discovered via Google Earth and some guy trekked out there to see it IRL and was the first person to ever set foot in that

Beware of overcharging someone. Thats the #1 lesson learned from the Zimmerman case. He was guilty of avoidable behavior that ultimately culminated in a fatality- manslaughter- but he was not guilty

You should've tried to get on the jury and convince the rest that he was not guilty.

Posted Images

Another good example of CNN's inability to even accidently act like journalist:Cliff:Someone tells Bachman that 10% fo the country is gay,She tells them the Kinsley Report was a myth.The story ends there, no effort to explain if it is a myth ( it is ) or why etc.Just pure worthless words used to fill space.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Another good example of CNN's inability to even accidently act like journalist:Cliff:Someone tells Bachman that 10% fo the country is gay,She tells them the Kinsley Report was a myth.The story ends there, no effort to explain if it is a myth ( it is ) or why etc.Just pure worthless words used to fill space.
It's a political ticker blog; it's not supposed to be involved.Also, the entire Kinsey Report is not a myth despite the fact that this one statistic seems to be off by a factor of 2 (most recent statistics suggest about 5% of the country is gay).Maybe you could dig up the article from Fox News about Obama's Hip Hop BBQ birthday bash featuring notable hip-hop artists like Stevie Wonder so we could see some "good" journalism.
Link to post
Share on other sites

She didn't say the report was a myth, just the 10% figure.Has she said anti-gay things before? Seems like she might've. We need LimbaughGod back. That woman with the "Gay-friendly" sign was obviously someone trying to make her look bad, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, the entire Kinsey Report is not a myth despite the fact that this one statistic seems to be off by a factor of 2 (most recent statistics suggest about 5% of the country is gay).
Yea.. a guy had a volunteer study about your intimate sexual practices in the 1950s in Middle America, was surprised that so few people stepped up so he went to the prison to use inmates to fill his numbers.Another 'fact' Kinsey found was that over 40% of the population near farms has had sex with an animal. And 8% in the big cityThe closer number for gay population is 1-2%
Link to post
Share on other sites
The closer number for gay population is 1-2%
"I wonder if you're aware that 10% of the population is gay. And if you have 28 children, then 2.8 of those kids are very likely gay."So you're saying that she only has half a kid who is gay? Is that like having a full bisexual kid?
Link to post
Share on other sites
The closer number for gay population is 1-2%
recent census had 4.5% I believe. I have no idea how you could get a truly accurate number though.Dread, Bachmann doesn't say specific anti-gay things a whole lot----she spends more time decrying the homosexual agenda.....whatever that is.
Link to post
Share on other sites
recent census had 4.5% I believe. I have no idea how you could get a truly accurate number though.Dread, Bachmann doesn't say specific anti-gay things a whole lot----she spends more time decrying the homosexual agenda.....whatever that is.
Inflating their numbers for one thing
Link to post
Share on other sites
Republicans!Fig._7_-_Have_your_sex_partners_in_the_last_12_months_been_men.JPG
Democrats!<2,000 people asked, and that's a good enough cross reference to get a 99% accuracy rate of a population of 300,000,000 people!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Democrats!<2,000 people asked, and that's a good enough cross reference to get a 99% accuracy rate of a population of 300,000,000 people!
Uh, yeah, that's how statistical samples work. It's relatively easy (but lengthy) math to figure out why.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh, yeah, that's how statistical samples work. It's relatively easy (but lengthy) math to figure out why.
I get statistics, I can quote stats that show the number closer to 1-2%, and I can show 10% stats done by people with a vested interest.There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I get statistics, I can quote stats that show the number closer to 1-2%, and I can show 10% stats done by people with a vested interest.There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
yes but at least you have determined Democrats are much more likely to be gay...
Link to post
Share on other sites
yes but at least you have determined Democrats are much more likely to be gay...
judging by all the prominent Republican politicians and religious leaders who get caught up in gay scandals, I think all he has determined is Democrats are much more likely to tell the truth about being gay.Not to mention that political affiliation (unlike sexual orientation) is 100% a choice so it's not surprising that gay people gravitate mostly to the political party that doesn't despise them and try and limit their rights.I'll let someone else address the implied bigotry in your post.
Link to post
Share on other sites
judging by all the prominent Republican politicians and religious leaders who get caught up in gay scandals, I think all he has determined is Democrats are much more likely to tell the truth about being gay.Not to mention that political affiliation (unlike sexual orientation) is 100% a choice so it's not surprising that gay people gravitate mostly to the political party that doesn't despise them and try and limit their rights.I'll let someone else address the implied bigotry in your post.
Good post.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I get statistics, I can quote stats that show the number closer to 1-2%, and I can show 10% stats done by people with a vested interest.There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Irrelevant to the post you quoted. A survey of 2,000 people, done correctly, can establish how 200,000,000 people would answer within a couple percentage points.Also, I like how you think that only the 10% stats are "done by people with a vested interest," but you don't say the same thing about the 1-2% stats. I wonder if you have a vested interest...and why you care.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Irrelevant to the post you quoted. A survey of 2,000 people, done correctly, can establish how 200,000,000 people would answer within a couple percentage points.
Ahhhh, done correctly.... and we are talking about 300,000,000 so you actually prove my point.
Also, I like how you think that only the 10% stats are "done by people with a vested interest," but you don't say the same thing about the 1-2% stats. I wonder if you have a vested interest...and why you care.
Yes, I am going to receive money if it turns out there are fewer than 1.3% homosexuals during the November-June 2013 time frame from unnamed sources.Who shall remain unnamed...By me not naming them.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahhhh, done correctly.... and we are talking about 300,000,000 so you actually prove my point.
100,000,000 underage or mentally disabled people don't count, so I meant it when I said 200 mil. I win again! Huzzah!
Link to post
Share on other sites
100,000,000 underage or mentally disabled people don't count, so I meant it when I said 200 mil. I win again! Huzzah!
BG, I got this one for you:"Why aren't you counting Democrats?"Too easy TW, too easy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
the ugly side of ultra-cheap money (paywall, firefox extension)
Conceptually, when the financial system can no longer find outlets for the credit it creates, then it de-levers. The point should be understood from a yield as well as a credit risk point of view. When both yield and credit are at risk from the standpoint of “Gresham’s law,” the mix can be toxic. The recent example of MF Global emphasises the concept, as does the behaviour of depositors in some struggling European economies. If an investor has money on deposit with an investment bank/broker that not only appears to be at risk but returns nothing, then why maintain the deposit? Perhaps an investor would be more comfortable with a $100 bill at home in a mattress than a $100 bill on deposit with a broker – Securities Investor Protection Corporation notwithstanding. If so, system wide delevering takes place as opposed to the credit extension historically necessary for an expanding economy.
bill gross supports this with a few examples: money market funds' inability to operate on tiny yields, bank layoffs, etc.someone at work lamented, "CDs were at 11% when I started here... wish we could go back to that"HAVE YOU LEARNED NOTHING IN YOUR 30 YEARS?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...