Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My opinions are not attacks. They are opinions. Did I call you any names? Political affiliation labels don't count. No I didn't. Why I am being short with you is because you are side stepping all reality and fact here just to blather your agenda around. You need to look at the proof about the over sampling and weighting in that poll you want to bring to the grave with you. Look it up on the internet, the information is out there. Roysoldboy posted it, but you ignored it as is expected. So the fact remains, you either are a bit confused and need some correcting, or you are here to spread propaganda. Which is it? It really seems like the latter because you refuse to hear anything else or even entertain the idea that there is proof of the poll being inccurate, but you won't budge. That is not indicative of someone who actually wants to know the truth, that actually stinks of deliberate falsification of facts.
I'm not side stepping reality. You're quoting Frank Luntz (king of R spin) like he's God (along with the media research center, which puts in it's own share of radical RW spin) and then calling the polling unreasonable. Roy posted the info, and I disagree. The spin is obnoxious--I'm sure people like Luntz and the RW groups ARE trying to discount it, because you don't have the public with you on this, they know that, and they're scrambling.
As far claiming the poll is biased because they calling public staff "employees" vs. "workers"--just what do you think college educated staff, like teachers, nurses, and the vast majority of fire fighters and police officers, should be called? Do you think it's respectful or appropriate claim that the poll is biased because they didn't call them "workers?" That's ridiculous. My husband is an attorney who worked for state government--was he a "worker?" Rasmussen tried to bias it even further by referring the groups as "state unions" or "public employee unions" vs. using the term employees, thinking that union would bring an additional negative connotation--didn't work.
As far as understanding polling--I do marketing and strategic planning for a living. I get it just fine. I also get it when people are claiming BS.
There is no such thing as limitless resources in ANY society. If that happens to be the premise of your debate, we would be operating on different grounds. However, you were speaking of limited resources earlier so can I assume that is your position? Or, is it that we're not a free society, hence limited resources?
I think I am confusing the various forms of "resources", sorry about that. My original post was regarding resources that can be used to fund the wants of the collective. (tax revenue and government spending). I would say that we are not a free society and hence our ability to increases resources is limited but that should not be the case. The only area of our society that is truly unlimited in resources are the areas that enjoy the most government protection, in other words the least free market. The areas that should be the freest market and have the best ability to produce unlimited resources aren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Why do you think people's ability to protest is opposed to checks and balances, and that they should shut up and deal with it? People are engaged in a movement that is allowed by the set up which also includes checks and balances, and they have every right to take steps outlined within the constitutions. If they want to go for a referendum or recall (as in Ohio and Wisconsin), the constitution provides means to do that. Do you believe it was a bad idea?
People can protest, I feel that people can ask all they want but don't have the right to use collective force to gain an upper hand on one segment of society.
I am not sure what you are asking about regarding the bad idea?
I have little protection against the majority. Most of what I encounter is law and such, put in place by a government, put in place by a majority that ideologically swings every so many years (or a minority; both of which outnumber me)-tax rates, the new health care force to enrich companies, I was almost drafted against my will by a majority, I must be scanned at airports, etc. All that needs to be done is pass a law-the constitution and the bill of rights are worth their weight in paper.
My opinions are not attacks. They are opinions. Did I call you any names? Political affiliation labels don't count. No I didn't.
<snip>
That is not indicative of someone who actually wants to know the truth, that actually stinks of deliberate falsification of facts.
Well, actually, right there you're calling the poster you quoted a liar.
And here, speaking to the same poster:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
You are funny as hell. I get a kick out of lack of common sense. I really do. Do you know anything about polls? Do you know how to check their sampling data? Do you know how polls get weighted? I really, really don't think you have a clue. There is plenty of information out there about your beloved poll being weighted and fixed. You, on the other hand, want to keep your death grip on it and ignore the facts because it empowers your talking points and agenda. You say you're an R? More like a RINO, a liberal Republican or a Progressive. You would HAVE to be to be so blind and difficult.When someone avoids the truth or facts there is ALWAYS an agenda behind it. ALWAYS! We all know what yours is.
I want a more detailed list of rights, not this general crap that each sway of majority ideological power seems to have a desire to interpret...
Contrary to popular belief (or pervasive programming), the nation was not founded upon 'human rights'.
It was founded upon inalienable rights, more commonly known as natural and personal liberties.
However, since 1935, most Americans were tricked into surrendering said rights / liberties. Thus, few Americans 'know' what is going on.
What the founding generation knew about "liberty"
" Natural liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind, of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and that they do not in any way abuse it to the prejudice of other men."
- - - Bouvier's Law Dictionary
NATURAL LIBERTY - The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner in which they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 123,
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, p.919
Natural liberty is absolute freedom, limited to one's own property (outside of one's property, it would be a trespass). This does not mean there are no consequences for actions that escape one's domain and injure another person or his property. But for all intents and purposes, this is the core of America's republican form of government - the sovereignty of the people.
How do we "know" they were surrendered?
Whenever one needs to get permission (license) to do that which was previously not licensed, that's an indication of a lost right / liberty.
i have little protection against the majority. Most of what i encounter is law and such, put in place by a government, put in place by a majority that ideologically swings every so many years (or a minority; both of which outnumber me)-tax rates, the new health care force to enrich companies, i was almost drafted against my will by a majority, i must be scanned at airports, etc. All that needs to be done is pass a law-the constitution and the bill of rights are worth their weight in paper.
Unfortunately this is what a democracy looks like as it is collapsing on itself. Once we get to the point where we cant continue to pay for majority rule we start seeing people fighting each other for the remaining scraps.
Our founders warned us over and over that a democracy (majority rule) is not the answer, this is why you won't find Democracy in any founding documents.
Democracy will keep devolving to more and more battles, fights, yelling riots and mob rule. Very sad for all.
13 minutes and 26 seconds of people chanting, banging the drums, at a peaceful gathering. That's 13 minutes and 26 second of my life that I will never get back.
Unfortunately this is what a democracy looks like as it is collapsing on itself. Once we get to the point where we cant continue to pay for majority rule we start seeing people fighting each other for the remaining scraps.
Our founders warned us over and over that a democracy (majority rule) is not the answer, this is why you won't find Democracy in any founding documents.
Democracy will keep devolving to more and more battles, fights, yelling riots and mob rule. Very sad for all.
As this 5 year old topic still has some relevance in todays political climate what do you suggest to alleviate your apparent perceptions of a system of government in collapse?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
America isn't a democracy.
