You really don't know who "my campain" is
Posted By: Sharon on 2008-09-18
In Reply to: Not as much as putting out an ad from your campaign... - sam
and you are only assuming from some of my posts that I am a Democrat. One would assume by your posts that you are a Republican but you have claimed ad nauseum that you are an independent. I'm not a dem actually, but a pub. But, I don't believe all the garbage the pubs are putting forth.
I also don't hear McCain say much about what the GOP is doing, or trying to do in Michigan and a few other states about voter suppression to people who are in or have undergone foreclosure. That is disgusting to me too.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
In all fairness, the O rarely voted at all since his campain started
Go check his record on the government site, but in all fairness, McCain didn't vote much either since this campaign. Still I think he voted more than the O. Correct me if I'm wrong.
AND NO BASHING. Serious question here. I don't have time to count every vote and I did try to do that a month ago and posted my results.
I have looked at "my" guy
and I've looked at McCain. I wouldn't vote for McCain if you paid me. Did you not HEAR him say he's the biggest free trader ever?
<groan" only 1 more day.
Okay "my friends"
Signed Joe the (not) Plumber.
He's not "my boy". I only catch him
a couple times a week early in the morning if I can't sleep.
I don't have stocks or bonds, so it's really a moot point. I just need some laughs once in a while over how upset he gets over some things.
Has nothing to do with "humoring you" or "my" definitions.
It's important for you to discover the complexities for yourself (Google is all you need), and "my" definitions don't matter unless I am the one doing the analysis.
But I'll start the ball rolling.
1. "Prenatal care" starting at what point in the gestation (1st trimester? 2nd? etc.)?
2. Involving what different features or services?
3. Does the study adequately filter out other coincidental factors that tend to characterize some populations that do not receive prenatal care, but which also might impact infant survival, such as poor nutrition, smoking, alcohol and drug use, squalid living conditions and even low educational levels?
4. What time period after delivery will be used to define a relevant "infant death"?
5. What causes of infant demise will be considered relevant to the question?
6. Will all "modes" of delivery be included?
7. Will "high-risk" pregnancies be included or excluded?
8. Will premature deliveries be included or excluded?
The list of problems that have been identified in the design of studies that look very scientific and conclusive, and have been published in respected journals, has proven to be considerable.
Some have tried to get around these problems using a technique called "meta-analysis", which tries to reconcile and synthesize the findings from multiple studies, but this hasn't been very successful either.
The problems worsen when you simply use empirical evidence - say, by comparing birth/mortality rates in different countries with different "levels" of prenatal care. One study "showed" that the mortality rate in the US was higher than that in one of the Baltic states (I've forgotten now which one), but failed to take into account that in the US we try to deliver and save infants who are much more premature than they try to salvage in the other country - so naturally, our "failure" rate would look worse.
The other problem is really more or less endemic. "Prenatal care", however defined, will represent some set of services and characteristics. We may assume that all of them do not contribute equally (and some, perhaps not at all) to infant survival. This means that even if you can resolve all of the study design problems and show that prenatal care contributes to survival, you haven't said very much that's useful. It might be, for instance, that a simple regimen of multiple vitamins has as much impact on survival as all of the other factors combined. If so, have we presented a case for purchasing "prenatal care" as a constellation of services (from the standpoint of healthcare economics), or should we focus on finding ways to see that pregnant women get the multiple vitamins?
When we see "studies" of complex issues - especially those involving an interplay between myriad scientific and social or cultural factors - we should always put on the brakes and find out more about how the study was done, what assumptions it made, and keep a sharp eye out for flaws in the design of the study (which, I am sad to say, crop up more frequently than you might suspect), even or perhaps especially in the field of medicine. People who study things do have agendas, and sometimes the agenda amounts to grants of $millions in research funds, or sponsorship of the study by an organization that has a "mission", etc. A lot of what masquerades as "scientific proof" in the field of medicine, unfortunately, is nothing of the sort. Let's see now - are eggs good for us or bad for us?
Make that "my analogy refers to
nm
That "my friends" phrase, so oft-repeated, made him
"my Muslim faith" -- oops meant Christian
nm
great quote "My personal opinion, we don't even have a candidate that I can support as the les
I agree with you 100%! Why doesn't a retired general run or someone who knows what he is doing. It's like all the real men have disappeared from politics.
I am an independent....neither party is "my" party.
THis election cycle I believe the best man is a Republican. Do your research. John McCain warned about this in 2005, named Fannie and freddie by name, co-sponsored legislation to control them. Blocked by Democrats, led by Chris Dodd..same guy now trying to fix what he and the Dems broke. Chris Dodd, #1 on contributions list from fannie/freddie, followed closely by #2, your shining knight Mr. Obama. The chickens have come home to roost all right...or should I say the donkeys. :)
|
