they are alienating hispanics and all other new americans with their immigration stances. these people are productive, progressively richer, they care and they vote
G.O.P is on a steady decline unless they unhitch their horse from old dumb angry white people
That isn't in the bill itself.
I realize that.
That's what one person said in response to Morganstein's stated opinion about the bill.
A person who backs the bill, who perhaps could and should have said something a LOT MORE INTELLIGENT about it.
I hardly think a reasonable person would conclude that study subjects could not be anonymous. That's an extreme interpretation, not a reasonable one.
So then what is the REAL dispute? That would lead a president to veto it? Or is this whole debate the syphility ramblings of a 24 hour media cycle that can't seem to find any real news to report on in a world of 6 billion people with nearly uncountable real issues to investigate? (And despite my sarcasm... I count that possibility as entirely plausible.)
Sorry, you don't get to redefine science as "Something a scientist told me."
I never did. So
There is no shortage of people willing to make statements in the authoritative tone, and the stupid and undisciplined accept that as a way to avoid that uncomfortable feeling of uncertainty. I'm not among them, are you?
Again... nobody is redefining science. What are you on about?
The G.O.P. is the party of stupid
The G.O.P. even introduced the term
http://thehill.com/video/in-th...
But among Jindal's most provocative suggestions was the demand that the GOP needed to "stop insulting the intelligence of voters" — and display more intelligence itself. Jindal's comments seemed targeted squarely at conservative candidates in Senate races whose comments on rape and abortion appeared to torpedo their electoral chances.
"We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments," Jindal said.
The Louisiana governor also warned that Republicans were too associated with "big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes."
"We must not be the party that simply protects the well-off so they can keep their toys," Jindal said. "We have to be the party that shows all Americans how they can thrive."
it's a good strategy: identify something rich people need and want, then wrangle the idiots with fearmongering into supporting that agenda, even if it hurts the poor idiots. they're idiots, they can't even understand they're hurting themselves. so you have people without adequate healthcare for example, screaming low iq fears about obamacare
this doesn't mean there are no intelligent conservative people, they do exist. stupid liberals also exist
but it's just that if you meet a stupid person, they are more likely to be a conservative, because their simplistic dimwitted way of thinking about the world matches conservative ideology more closely
http://www.livescience.com/181...
There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.
The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found.
If it's not transparent and reproducible, it's not a proposal based on science, but authority. It holds as much weight as a statement by the Flying Spagetti Monster.
One can (and should) post the methodology and results without revealing confidential patient health information, sufficient that another group could reproduce the study.
You do not need to know the names of the participants, and have access to their medical records to reproduce the study. Find your own patients and reproduce the published methodology to lend weight or cast doubt on the original study.
That's how medical research should be done.
If you want a faith based approach to law making...
Time for your meds.
If I propose we serve beef burgers, and a vegetarian selection at a picnic and someone says, hey that sounds like maybe your suggesting we serve vegetarian PEOPLE as food?!!!
Would I say... "Not to worry, vegetarians may choose to opt-out of eating or being eaten."
Or... would I say? Are you nuts? I obviously didn't mean it that way. Fine, whatever... "I propose we serve beef hot dogs and a green salad"? We good?.. Lets move on.
If its a reaching non-issue Why would the backers of the bill suggest study participants can sign waivers or opt out? Why aren't they just fixing the bill to exclude that interpretation?
1. putzing around in a top notch Yacht in paradise is its own reward. the search for the Musashi was just a side part time effort
2. allen is from the west coast, of a certain age. so the battle in the Pacific looms large in his upbringing, and he is likewise motivated. your agenda is not his agenda, nor is your agenda magically better than his. in fact, Atlantis is just a myth with a number of sort-of maybe leads. not something you can actually go look for in a specific small area like the Sibuyan Sea
3. now that he has found Musashi, i hopes he keeps playing around in Southeast Asia, screw the Mediterranean, i wouldn't go, boring. Sulawesi sounds fun, i hope he has security though from pirates. not that his proclivities are my proclivities but the simple point is they aren't yours either. he can do whatever the fuck he wants, and nobody needs some random asshole saying their agenda is superior and must be followed. who the fuck are you?
but along your line of interests, maybe he will head here, it's not far from the Philippines, i would:
What's weird about making the data from scientific studies publically available? Frankly, I think the data from all government funded research should be public domain.
From the full article, the law as written, would bar the EPA from using any studies involving confidential patient information unless they were made public.
The (Republican) backers response? Apparently they think participants/Patients should sign a waiver agreeing that the raw study data might be made public, or they can simply choose not to participate in the study.
Frankly, I'm disgusted.
The result is clear: very few, if any, studies would be available to the EPA to use as a basis to set policy.
The idea of transparent science is good. But this is clearly an attempt to strip the EPA of any ability to actually do science or regulate based on science.
A friend of mine recently got a job at Oculus. I asked her, if she ever meets John Carmack, to start the conversation with "Hey, aren't you the guy who wrote Commander Keen?". I thought it would be a refreshing change of pace for him. We'll see if she comes through.
So they're going to destroy your reputation at a moments notice, by disclosing that they illegally spied on you and open themselves up to law suits.
Good luck with that. If you're in their crosshairs, you'll get bagged, tagged and shipped off to Gitmo, which is what would have happened to Snowden if was caught before he fled.
The iPhone when it came out was far less useful than any of the windows phones, but it took off because it cost more, and did less, while being pretty.
Nope. Multitouch was simply worlds better than stylus + soft or slide out keyboard.
"Visual voicemail" or whatever it was called kicked the ass out of dial-in voicemail which was still the default on windows mobile devices.
And the whole UI being designed for touch instead of stylus made it a LOT easier to use.
Yes, you definitely gave up lots of functionality in terms of the iphone not having stylus, and only being able to interact with it with your fingers; editing a spreadsheet on an iphone 3G was terrible compared to Windows Mobile 5/6... but making a call or appointment or sending a text message was orders of magnitude better.
now you're changing argument. that's an intellectually dishonest effort. you were trying to say the democrats are as bad as republicans. they clearly are not. if al gore was president, we would not have invaded iraq. if romney or mccain had won versus obama, we would have no ACA. that's just two examples out of thousands of major policy differences
so if changing the subject is the best you can do, that's just your low character way of conceding i am correct. you're welcome for the education
btw, the democrats DO suck. but not nearly as bad as the republicans. that's my point. the lesser of two evils (and there is no such thing as ideological perfection in politics, so grow the fuck up if you think you can actually sit around and wait for that). they are NOT the same. if you believe them to be the same, you are merely announcing your ignorance of the topic. almost every day for the last 2 years, republicans tried to repeal obamacare, and the democrats constantly shaking their heads. they are not the same, in many ways, on many crucial policy points
well said
and it's exactly like the antivaccine morons
have them sit down and talk to an old person from when polio was a constant worry, or heck, just look at tombstones in old cemeteries from the 1800s: read the ages of the dead, how many children would routinely die before age 10... sometimes what killed them is listed: pertussis, whooping cough, measles, etc., regularly killed scores of kids every year
there's people with ignorant beliefs created in the bubble that vital modern protections afford them. vital protections that they are so unaware of the need for (out of being stupid and uneducated), they actually believe the protections are the problem
hordes of these stupid loser douchebags, commenting loudly, everywhere
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?
