What bothers me is that these “likelyhood of being a terrorist/criminal” scores, which are made by some random supercomputer in a government facility somewhere, are impossible for the public to see, or to argue with. And the fact that these scores might be used to actually determine who gets government contracts, jobs, liscenses for things, etc. instead of the current assessment processes is borderline absurd. “I’m sorry sir, but the computer has decided you MIGHT be a terrorist or criminal, so you can’t have this job.”

When will we get some guts about us and stand up and fight for our privacy (even terrorists’). Before long anyone could be considered a threat. Freedom’s only threat is when her people are afraid. It is no wonder why Jesus said in Matthew 24 that when they cry peace and safety then comes sudden destruction. They only way we can have peace is to defend our freedom and hold government accountable for stealing our freedom.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/11/30/traveler.screening.ap/index.html

P.S. u guys take me seriously….don’t u:neutral:?

Plus, in this case, the person I was originally responding to was Terry Mcghee, and I’m pretty sure he was being serious, so I took him (a little bit) seriously.

But these things are difficult to tell over the net, so if i took it completely the wrong way, then my bad.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/statemapredbluelarge.png

Makes sense, dont it? But is it accurate/truthful? This map ignores three major problems:

1) The population of the states shown. Places like tiny rhode island have twice as many voters as considerably larger wyoming. You get the idea… (if you insist, i can explain further)

2) What about “purple” states, where the amount of dems and republicans is nearly even?

3) What about places that vary politically by smaller areas than the state? (e.g. by town or county)

The solution?

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/

1) Adjust the size of the states according to their population

2) fade colors from red - purple -blue to show margin of victory (note

3) Split the map up by county to show more nuanced regional differences (if you split by a denomination less than county - e.g. district - the amount of data becomes impractical)

So, which map do you think gives a more accurate perception of American politics?

And that makes it accurate, and ok to say that? As long as one’s depiction of the republican party is consistent with how you, Chad Coleman think of it or want it to be, it is fine? What about whether or not that depiction is true of the whole?

All I’m saying is that it is very important to resist labeling people or groups of people whether in a positive or negative light.

1) Some republicans (or even most republicans) are gun toting.

Accurate.

2)The republicans are the gun toting party.

Inaccurate.

While gun toting may be ONE characteristic of the republican party (and even that is debatable), it is certainly not the only and defining characteristic of the republican party. So to say republicans are the gun party and democrats are the gay party, while it may be tempting, and pretty funny, to think of it that way, is also dangerous, and lowers the level of contact between the two groups to pigeonholing and name calling.

Go ahead and joke about it - i LOVE political humor - but if you want to make a serious political statement and be taken seriously, it must be properly qualified. Life is complicated.

Just because something makes sense doesn’t mean it’s the truth, and vice versa.

The democrats are constantly on the defense of the gays, so I feel that I could safely say that the democrats are the gay party… i dunno. maybe it only makes sense to me.

i know you werent literally saying that dems as a group “parade down gay street” etc. but it’s easy for people to get the wrong idea, especially over the internet, where the tone of that sort of thing can be unclear.

Gay pride parade = 97% democrat? (or more likely, an amalgamation of liberal groups)

ok granted - it might not be exactly true, but near enough. but then to say:
therefore, the democrats = homosexual, or the party of homosexuals?

sorry, but nope. Just as the GOP accepts all kinds under its big tent, so the democrats… it is one of the great frustrations and beauties of the American system of government (which I personally have a ton of respect for, as do you, i know) that it requires us to compromise - “i don’t like your views, or lifestyle, but i can accept it.”

Personally, i think the new balance of power (with the dems taking congress) is a good thing, because it means that neither party can dominate, as should be the case when the country is divided nearly 50-50.