Welcome to Gaia! ::

1.85% of the Senate SINCE it was created.


So since 1917 there's only been 216 in the House of Representatives.


Oh yeah...
I'm sure you know... less then 25% of Congress...
They could... they could hope real hard. I guess.

16 out of 100.
71 out of 435.

Oh yeah. Those are good odds. rolleyes

Hey it could be worse. It could be less. We should be happy that this problem is getting fixed. I don't see your point though for this for or against any candidate.

Oh to quote you

"This is the internet. Not a ******** text book."

Who is being the hypocrite now?

Oh and the Cthulhu '08 thing is awesome! Why vote for the lesser of two evils rofl [sigh] I just want to say I am sorry, but you really got under my skin for some reason. I shouldn't be so bitchy, but its tough being a women in this day and age still >.< Try and understand that from everything I have looked into I can't see how Ron Paul is not a good choice for America, and I will try and understand from where your coming from. Instead of fighting each other we should set aside our differences and look at what we do have in common. The abortion debate is a huge one on gaia, and we are both pro-choice. I find it weird that we are even arguing the fact of being pro-anything. Once again, I am sorry for upsetting you. Good debate though.

look at my post again. Lets end this dribble.

Well thats true, but Ron Paul doesn't want to throw people away for doing crack, instead he wants to help them get over their addiction, and thinks we are paying too much for this War on Drugs, and there are better means of doing things. I know many people in the guild know this to be true al least.

I found some things on Kucinich -

He Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003) -limiting our freedom

Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998 ) - IDK why the hell he did that.

Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
-limiting freedom once again

Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003) -IDK why again, maybe because there should be a better plan, but hey lets not try to be helpful at least.

IDK what do you all think?

Flag burning is pointless to begin with.
Its just a symbolic thing.
And if people want to burn our flag they should get the ******** out of our country. In my opinion.
Besides technically the image of the flag belongs to the USA so they do have the right to say if you live here you can't do that.

Preferential treatment by race is well discriminating.
You should get into collage based on your grades.
Not your race.
I'm glad he voted No on School Prayers.
I have enough of a problem with the Pledge.

The Amber Alert thing. Well.
It works but its not that effective.
I mean I've never seen an Amber alert.
We don't have any of those electric boards here.
But I guess that is fairly weird and I don't know why he did it.
But I sure he had a reason.
Probably that it isn't that effective.

We are all gonna take a DEEP breath really quick. Voting NO on the ENDING of preferential treatment by race. That means he's STILL for giving a little extra boost to African Americans. The school prayer (from what I understand of it) was FORCED prayer for all students. As in all students would have to make a daily prayer to God. That's instigating a Christian belief system into a public school system via the government. Against the Constitution. There's nothing in it that said a person praying in school on their own would be breaking the law.

I still would vote for Gravel before Kucinich and Kucinich before Paul.

Of Yankee Fans and Ron Paul Polls


A new scientific study shows that baseball fans don't want the Cubs, Angels, or Diamondbacks to win the world series.

"Excuse me, but how can a scientific study tell you that?"

"Well, we ran a full scientific study, and extrapolated from a representative sample of baseball fans out to fans as a whole."

"I see. And just who made up your sample of all fans?"

"300 Yankee season ticket holders. Why?"

There's been a lot of discussion on why Ron Paul, with all of his obvious Internet popularity, is only polling in the single digits nationwide. Various theories have been presented, such as "pollsters don't call cell phones, and Ron Paul's followers don't use landlines," and "much of Ron Paul's support comes from first-time voters."

The mainstream uses the single-digit poll results to support their claim that "Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance," and use them as ammunition for excluding him from debates or coverage. But just how "scientific" are those polling methods?

A scientific poll involves taking a representative sample of the population, and based on their responses, extrapolating what the public they represent will likely think. The sample has to be a cross-section of the whole, without being skewed towards one particular response.

For their sample, the polls use "Republicans who voted in the last Presidential Primary." Ah, I remember that campaign. Bush outspent his opponent by a nearly two to one margin, used the Primaries to hammer home his foreign policies, made a few risky campaign promises, and in the end, got the nomination, barely squeaking out a victory over...um...over...

...waitaminnit, maybe I don't remember the 2004 Republican Primaries. Who ran against George W.?

To rephrase the question...I can't imagine any Republican with the nerve to face down a sitting, popular (to Republicans, then, at least), wartime, President, and say "Mr. President, I really feel you need to be replaced. I think the American people need to pull you from the Oval Office and put me in there instead."

Ah, the wonders of Wikipedia. According to the entry "United States Republican Party presidential nomination, 2004,"

"Not surprisingly, incumbent President George W. Bush, the presumptive nominee, won the nomination without significant opposition."

I took a moment to scroll through the state-by-state results listed on the page. Bill Wyatt actually managed to scrape out 10% in Oklahoma, but the rest of the states are slam-dunk, 90% and higher, victories across the board. George W. Bush, in a landslide, state after state.

Why bother to vote when there's only one candidate running?

That mentality defined the Republican primaries. According to USAToday:

Republican turnout — at 6.6% — was the lowest on record, as Bush ran essentially unopposed.

These are the sample voters used for the 2008 polls. 6.6 percent of the Republicans in 2004--the bare handful who showed up to cast symbolic votes for the only name on the ticket.

Think about that. The mainstream press is using this handful of people who voted for George W. Bush--when he was running unopposed!--as their "statistically significant" sample of concerned American voters. The political analysts are basing their election predictions, and their professional careers, on a random and biased telephone survey of a few hundred people who bothered to show up when their "fearless leader" wasn't being challenged by anyone. Where is the concern with the economy? Illegal immigration? Illegal wiretapping? The "War on Terror?" These weren't issues in the 2004 Republican primaries.

In a nutshell, the core data behind the "scientific" polls is as flawed as the data in the humorous example at the start of this essay. It's based on a mere handful of the Republicans who were registered four years ago--and those who were so rabidly pro-George W. that they turned out--in a trickle, not a flood--to propel him through the primaries and into the election.

What would an unbiased survey look like?

Well, that's fairly easy to guess at. Over seventy percent of the country wants the troops brought home. Dr. Ron Paul is the only anti war candidate running, in either party. So, any unrestricted and unfiltered poll might show as much as seventy percent in favor of Ron Paul--like the recent CNBC poll that was taken down as "unrealistic" after 7000 votes showed a 75% landslide victory.

I have looked into Gravel and he sounds good to me too. I don't know too much about him though. I need to look more into it.

At the Values Voters Debate you can see why Ron Paul wants to negate roe vs wade with the abortion of a child who was taken out of the women alive and screaming and cry and they just set it aside and ignored it untill it die. Thats very messed up if you ask me. See for yourself.

Politics is so confusing.

edit:


Barack Hussein Obama's said he refused to not only put his hand on his heart during the pledge of allegiance, but refused to say the pledge.
With this stunt he can most likely kiss his Presidency good bye.