Harris released a poll recently. You might have heard some liberals chortling over it. citizen and 38 percent think he doing some things Hitler did. Oh yes, there one more knee slapper: 24 percent of Republicans say Obama may be the anti Christ. These type of polls are becoming more common. The left site Daily Kos published a similar one a while back. They satisfy for the polls creators and themany who digest it a need to consider their political opposites as bigoted, dumb, inbred, slack jawed neanderthals. It an Internet poll. Respondentsparticipate by being offered points to buy gifts. The main contribution of Internet polls are their uncanny consistency in scoring for Alan Keyes and Ron Paul in Republican Do a Net poll, and you attract a lot of odd people with a lot of free time on their hands. Then, Langer explains, poll starts by telling respondents "here are some things people have said about President Obama," then asking if they think each is true or false. Fifteen statements follow, with all (excluding "he is a Muslim") unrelentingly negative. "True" answers run from a high of 40 percent, for "he is a socialist," to a low of 13 percent, for "he wants the terrorists to win." Langer continues, problems are fundamental. "Some people have said" is a biasing introductory phrase; it imbues the subsequent statements with an air of credibility particularly whenyou don't note that others say something else. (That approach can have problems of its own; the "some people" vs. "other people" format implies equivalence.) the Harris poll has no alternative to consider. There are only a flurry of negative comments with a yes or no answer. Langer explains, wealth of academic literature, demonstrates that questions constructed in this fashion true/false, agree/disagree carry a heavy dose of what's known as acquiescence bias. They overstate agreement with whatever's been posited, often by a very substantial margin. it well known in polling that negative questions directed at persons who are already ill disposed toward the subject invites blowback, or the opportunity for an already frustrated person to vent. Langer writes, than answering disparagingpoll questions literally, people who are ill disposed toward the subject may simply use these questions as an opportunity to express their general antipathy not as a thought out endorsement of the specific posit. And the use of hot button invective is ill advised in its own right; respondents may just blow it back. Democrat chortling about this poll, if he or she is honest, knows that 24 percent of Republicans don believe Obama is the anti Christ, let alone 14 percent of the population (as the poll claims). The number is fringe, probably below 1 percent. But the dishonest Harris poll was to go with a future anti Republican Party book that is titled or something. The bogus polls feeds into a pre conceived narrative, rather than the truth. Gary Langer is making the rounds lately, and I think he smart about these topics. Convenience sample surveys do have inherent problems, but those do not automatically make their findings unsupportable. In a follow up to his post, Langer argues that a Pew finding in 2008 2009, that 17% of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim, proves his contention that the Harris poll is wildly over reaching. But on the substance I don find that particularly convincing, as the Republican and far right rhetoric has ramped up tremendously in the intervening time, and so it would not surprise me to find that number to have increased dramatically. But set aside the poll and consider the actual substance of the sentiment. The institutional Republican party has encouraged these very sentiments for months now, beginning in the presidential campaign when Sara Palin though it quite appropriate to allow questioning of Obama patriotism or agenda. Congressmen are questioning Obama citizenship, the chair of the party is deploring the march toward Socialism, and have you read the comment threads around here where posters insistently proclaim Obama to be working against God plan? These are not narrowly held sentiments, but as Mark notes, even if they held by a fringe, it remains a fringe that has the eyes and ears of a large constituency not the least of which is a media that seems to think shouts of Marxist! are the counterpoint to a health care policy. WELL! I gonna set the damn record straight on this Obama business once and for all. ANY THINKING PERSON knows Obama is not the President of the UNITED States. ANY THINKING PERSON knows that the constitution requires a person to be a NATURAL born citizen of the UNITED States. ANY THINKING PERSON knows that Obama was born in Hawaii of a white mother and a BLACK father. ANY THINKING PERSON knows that UNITED means joined together as in next to each other. ANY THINKING PERSON knows that NATURAL means what God and Nature intended. ANY THINKING PERSON knows that race mixing is not NATURAL. ANY THINKING PERSON knows that this is all in the Bible. ANY THINKING PERSON knows that there is a big ocean between Hawaii and the real UNITED States, therefor Hawaii could not possibly be part of the UNITED States. ANY THINKING PERSON therefore would know that Obama could not possibly be the President of the real UNITED states. I sure wish all of you people would wake up once and for all and realize the TRUTH! Doug, we have had this discussion before in private. It is my belief that the majority of people (voters and non voters) are conservative/Republican by default, even if they do not carefully follow politics. If the majority of our population is not college educated, but is born into a conservative household, that tells you something of the archaic nature of conservative thinking. Liberalism is generally a choice made later in one life as a result of much more education and a breaking away of one upbringing and inherited beliefs from their parents. I not suggesting that there isn any college educated conservatives, but you have to admit that the majority of people who are not educated have a tendency to lean towards conservative, Republican ideals. I have never met a Liberal who is religiously fanatical, or clings to guns and the Bible. How could anyone possibly tell me that the Tea Party morons are going to align themselves with Liberals? How come it is always gun nuts and militia groups who cling to religion and conservative ideals, and not Liberals? When was the last time you heard of a Liberal group who wants to overthrow the government and take up arms to march on Washington? Steve, I disagree with you about the correlation between education and political ideology. There were plenty of sheepskin holders in the Reagan and Bush administrations and on the Republican side of the House and Senate. There are plenty of College drop outs and never beens living alternative lifestyles and voting for Cindy Sheehan. I think you too thin skinned. You love to reference polls in your blogs, yet when one smears your personal sense of identification, you quickly show a source that refutes it. You can have it both ways. I give this poll as much credence as I do the one you shared a few months ago that showed that conservatives were more politically knowledgable than liberals. Air Jordan 9 Birmingham Barons ,Air Jordan 10 Venom Green Air Jordan 9 Birmingham Barons Air Jordan 6 Infrared 23 Air Jordan 3 Powder Blue Air Jordan 6 Infrared 23 Air Jordan 6 Infrared 23 Air Jordan 10 Charlotte Bobcats Air Jordan 3 Powder Blue Air Jordan 3 Powder Blue A foot rub can be awkward for both the therapist and the client. Feet are prone to bacteria and unpleasant smells that can be off putting for a body worker, and the sensitive bottoms of the feet can be ticklish to a client. Instead of massage oil, which will leave the feet greasy and provide a "ticklish" touch, use talcum powder or cornstarch, creams or lotions. Such lubricants are easily removed, ensuring that a client won't have to walk on oily, slippery feet. Additionally, non oil based lubricants offer the therapist a better grip for a deeper, firmer touch; this is the secret to avoiding tickling the feet. There are a number of pressure points on the feet that are believed to affect the health of parts and systems all over the body. In addition to stroking and rubbing the feet, take some time to stretch and spread the bones of the foot. Grasp the pad of the foot just below the toes in both hands and knead it apart as if stretching the foot wider. Feel the individual tarsal bones and spread them out by kneading the joints. Spend some time applying static pressure to any points on the foot which feel like knots or trigger points. Apply pressure to the knots with the thumbs to slowly sink the foot into relaxation. Air Jordan 9 Birmingham Barons,In a post on her Facebook page, Sink said, careful consideration, I have decided that the best way for me to make a positive and lasting impact on our state is to continue the work we started together. I plan to continue my involvement with the Florida Next Foundation, working to build a state of innovation and inspiring the next generation of young Florida leaders. And of course I am going to be supporting candidates who I believe share my vision that Florida can be a state of opportunity for all of its citizens. Over and over again, all I can hear is him saying, a pro life, pro gun conservative. (Crist) has his share of baggage and he going to need to figure out what to do about it. It depends on how well he doing his disaster preparedness. . I going to be listening very carefully for the person who shares my values, has the best message and can raise the money to have a chance. . There may be other candidates down the road. we get into the spring and summer he might be prevailed upon to run. From my perspective that would be otustanding news. Florida needs Alex Sink and I excited about what happening at her Florida NEXT Foundation.
Orders Over 99 For Freeshipping Air Jordan 9 Birmingham Barons,Air Jordan 10 Charlotte Bobcats SpaceX now tentatively hopes to launch CRS 3 on April 18. Launch is scheduled to occur at 16:58 EDT (21:58 UK time) from Cape Canaveral. As a reminder, this will be the first heavy launch vehicle that will attempt a soft landing back here on Earth and as such, if it a success, this could be one of history most significant space launches. The original story from March, detailing the soft landing, is below. There is also a live video stream of the launch embedded below if you have a few minutes, be sure to watch it; the soft landing should be spectacular. Original storySpaceX, Elon Musk poster child of the commercial space travel revolution, is about to attempt the first ever soft landing of a heavy space launch vehicle. On March 16, SpaceX mission CRS 3 will lift off from Cape Canaveral on a resupply mission to the International Space Station. Usually, the massive primary stage of the rocket would fall into the Atlantic ocean after launch but in this case, it will sprout some metal legs and use what left of its rocket fuel to slowly return to Earth. This is perhaps the single most important step in SpaceX stated goal of reducing the cost of space travel by a factor of 10, eventually leading to the human colonization of Mars. The Falcon 9 is very large. Simply throwing them away into the ocean is rather wasteful. One of the primary reasons that the human exploration of space is moving so slowly is cost. Yes, you can argue that space agencies like NASA and ESA should receive more funding, but at the end of the day it still excruciatingly expensive for humanity to send stuff into space. For heavy lift vehicles, which are required to lift large satellites, equipment, and supplies into space, it costs somewhere in the region of $10,000 to lift a single pound ($22,000/kg) into orbit around the Earth. It costs even more if you want to propel that mass out of the Earth gravity and over to Mars. For sending astronauts into space, though, NASA currently pays around $70 million per seat aboard the Soyuz space capsule. (A crewed version of SpaceX Dragon capsule, DragonRider, is in development, which will reduce the cost per seat to $20 million but it won launch until 2015 at the earliest.) Now, it always going to be expensive to lift stuff off the Earth surface (blame gravity!), but there are some big changes we can make that will reduce the cost significantly such as re using the launch vehicle. Currently, for all space launch vehicles, the initial rockets and fuel tanks are jettisoned usually into the ocean, never to be seen again. This is incredibly wasteful; according to theSpace Development Steering Committee, those rockets cost in the region of $100 million, and we throw them away after a single use. Enter SpaceX reusable launch vehicle (RLV) technology. How to maneuver a very long cylinder with just a single point of thrust: Gimbals! SpaceX originally debuted its RLV tech on the suborbital Grasshopper rocket in 2013 (video above). If the tests were successful which they were the plan was to take the same tech and scale it up to the full size Falcon rocket. Basically, after the first stage detaches from CRS 3, it will use its Merlin rocket engines to slowly return to Earth. For this flight, the first stage will still land in the water but once SpaceX is confident that it can do so safely, future launches will see the first stage fly all the way back to to the launchpad. After that, SpaceX will start bringing the second stage back to the launchpad, too. The eventual goal, according to SpaceX, is to create a launch system that is reusable within hours. Basically, SpaceX would give these rockets a quick once over, fill them back up with fuel and off they go again. The fuel is still very expensive, but it nothing compared to the cost of the hardware. If everything goes to plan, the total cost per pound to launch into Earth orbit could drop to $500 or less one twentieth of what today unreusable rockets cost. Suffice it to say, if SpaceX manages to undercut every other space launch company in the world including the Russian and Chinese governments it could suddenly find itself in a very powerful and lucrative position. The launch of CRS 3 will take place on March 16 at 04:41 EDT (early Sunday morning). There will be a live NASA feed, which will hopefully show the first stage powered descent into the ocean. Tagged InThe shuttle was awesome for what it could do. orbiters was the fault of tank (shedding foam) and solid booster (damaged O rings) issues, and was not the fault of the orbiter design itself. government hadn kept funding so low, forcing NASA to drop clever fly back booster concepts (which operate more cheaply but are in turn more expensive to design and construct). And if the military hadn forced NASA to make the orbiter FAR larger than the Dyna Soar size that NASA preferred, in order to be able to carry Uncle Sam newest schoolbus sized spy satellites, then it could have proven far more efficient to use/reuse. Maybe someday someone will try again and get it right, using lessons learned from the first (and still only) manned winged spacecraft. I actually prefer NASA to a private company like SpaceX. I not saying that there isn a place for privatized space travel but some things are better left to NASA. It all comes down to the motives of each group. The private sector end goal is to make money. That it. If there is no profit to be made the private sector doesn care. In many cases that is totally fine. In other cases isn not. On the other hand, NASA main goal is to expand scientific understanding. That isn always profitable. Take for example, the possible mission to Jupiter moon Europa. There is no profit to be made by exploring Europa so if it wasn for NASA it wouldn happen. The same goes for past accomplishments. Do you think we would have sent out Voyager 1, walked on the moon or sent a rover to Mars with a purely privatized space industry? No way. Somehow I feel you are implying NASA can make use of the tech generated by the private sector (maybe I wrong?). Sure, NASA motivations are different, but if there a cheaper way to send something into space, they can capitalize on it and send 20 things for the current price of 1. Right now, NASA contracts the Russians to use their rockets, what the difference to contract SpaceX? The development of this technology in no way whatsoever changes NASA missions, motivations, or the execution of their plans. It just makes it more cost effective to pursue their scientific endeavors, because even though they don have to turn a profit, they still have to stick to a budget. The more spacial awesomeness that comes out of that budget, the better. I agree to an extent. NASA has come up with amazing things. The problem is that in the past 25 or so years it became a giant government boondoggle. Part of that was because of the lack of a political mandate. Part of it was the Congressmen all wanted things built in their district and added thousands of useless projects as a form of PORK. By offering contracts out to corporate firms, in theory you can avoid this through competition. In reality, that will probably only work for so long, then the companies will become TOO BIG TO FAIL and will be so intertwined with the Government that they become just as screwed up as NASA ever was. But whatever, at least we are getting back on track (for now). That is actually very incorrect. Doing the historical research shows that ALL great exploration has been done for either profit or religious reasons. Columbus mission was privately funded with the Spanish Crown only providing patents on trade routes and the 1400s equivalent of a loan guarantee. The money came from private groups. Lewis Clark were paid by the Government but with the specific mission of finding a route to the Pacific for commercial reasons. the idea of exploring for no reason other than knowledge only came about in the last half century. I a super NASA fan. I agree that a lot of what they do wouldn be done by the private sector because there no money to be made. I hope they continue to do what they do and their budgets are increased. However, hauling cargo into space is a repetitive, costly endeavor. This is the perfect case for letting companies compete to drop costs. If you can halve the cost for NASA to put stuff in space, then they can put double the stuff in space or put the same amount of stuff for half the cost. This will either free up money that would be used to launch more satellites/missions or enable them to increase the size (and therefore complexity) of the satellites/missions they are launching anyway. Also, it lets NASA focus on what they do best, exploration, and leaves the mundane it only rocket science, afterall ;) to a company like SpaceX. Since the other option is paying Russia to launch stuff, I rather see my tax dollars go to an American company that employs American engineers, even if said company did it for the same price as Russia. Luckily, it looks like SpaceX will do it waaay cheaper NASA, like any institution, has its pluses and minuses. One of the minuses is how you join NASA. Unless things have changed, you take a test. You are then scored based upon the results of that test PLUS an added weighting depending on the amount of time you spent in the military. Correspondingly, over the years NASA has become a retirement community for military double dippers. This is hardly the turf you anticipate exploring for new, imaginative, and leading edge thinking. SpaceX is not about the money. Money is the result of creating a successful launch platform. The goal of SpaceX is to advance humanity into space with a long term goal of colonizing Mars. That is why SpaceX is constantly improving their rockets and technology. Other companies and NASA are in the business of making money and hitting budgets. In the space of 10 years, NASA has had 50, SpaceX has already revolutionized the launch industry. If they succeed at reusability then they will have definitely changed the whole world. Other companies are happy to maintain what they know works and don push the envelope. Of course SpaceX is about the money. I not saying good things can happen or going to Mars isn a real goal but that is secondary to making money. SpaceX is a BUSINESSES! Elon Musk is a BUSINESSES MAN. Him saying he wants to go to Mars is most likely true but primarily he is looking to make money. If he can find away to achieve both that is great but if he can profit from it too it is unlikely to happen. NASA goals aren motivated by profit so for many things they are better suited to lead the way. If SpaceX can help that happen for a lower cost and NASA continues to get funding that is equal to our greater than what they have now then great. Everyone wins. Musk makes billions and NASA continues to expand our understanding of the universe but don fool yourself on the actual motivation of a businesses. some interviews of Elon back in 2008 and watch one from 2014, there is little difference in what he says. true. He uses the same exact sound bites. It gets so boring listening to him. He figures out how to answer everything word for word like he has done a thousand times before. It is almost as bad as Winston Churchill who would lock himself away from his relatives for weeks practicing his facial expressions and delivery in case he were asked something. (Or so say his relatives.) He was very and so is Musk. NASA was great in the 60 when it had a purpose. But it performance since Apollo has been a national disgrace. It became a big public works project and lost it focus. The advantage of private companies is that they come and go based on results. Air Jordan 9 Birmingham Barons We love our shoes right ladies? Shoes are an obsession from sky high heels, platforms, and wedges, to strappy sandals, flats and booties. One designer that hits the mark on designing shoes that fits every lifestyle and budget is Vince Camuto, who is the CEO of Camuto Group and co founder of the internationally famous fashion brand Nine West. Bing images In 1999 Nine West was sold to Jones Apparel Company and in 2001, Vince Camuto established Camuto Group, a marketing and design service company. Then in 2005, he created his own shoe line named Vince Camuto and partnered with such brands as Lucky Brand Jeans, Banana Republic and Jessica Simpson. In 2009, he included a designer handbag collection to his growing portfolio. Vince Camuto supports many charities such as St. Jude's Children Research Hospital, Leukemia Society of America and the world famous Ronald McDonald House. Tips for moving houseplants from outdoors to indoorsMany gardeners keep their houseplants outside during the summer and move them inside for the winter. Typically this is a good strategy but with moving plants in during the winter the plants.
Your Best Choice To Buy Air Jordan 9 Birmingham Barons 2014 New Style,Buy Now,Free Shipping
Air Jordan 3 Powder Blue
Air Jordan 9 Birmingham Barons
Air Jordan 10 Charlotte Bobcats
Air Jordan 9 Birmingham Barons
Air Jordan 3 Powder Blue
Air Jordan 6 Infrared 2014
Air Jordan 3 Powder Blue
Air Jordan 6 Infrared 23
Air Jordan 10 Powder Blue 2014
Air Jordan 3 Infrared 23