Yea, but if the 100 people surveyed don't agree with your definition, you still get a ⌧ BAHHHHHHN!

Well lets just look at 1 of you girl Hillary at a town square meetings . -- For old time sake. Lets remissness how how her moral fiber and honesty is.

Lets see how fair and honest Hillary , the Media and the audience with questions are.



Please tell me that this Liar is a better choice.. how she represents something different politics, that she is not of the establishment that she will clean house if she got into office.

Remember the Poll: ‘Liar’ Tops List of 50 Words Americans Used to Describe Hillary Clinton.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/27/poll-liar-tops-list-of-50-words-americans-used-to-describe-hillary-clinton/





In the latest Quinnipiac poll, the pollsters asked a simple question of Americans: “What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of Hillary Clinton?”
The survey included responses from 1,563 registered voters nationwide including 666 Republicans and 647 Democrats.

here are the top terms for our girl from this poll

liar 178
dishonest 123
untrustworthy 93
experience 82
strong 59
Bill 56
woman 47
smart 31
crook 21
untruthful 19
criminal 18
deceitful 18
Democrat 16
intelligent 15
email 14
politician 13
Benghazi 12
corrupt 12
crooked 11

And you still choose her?

I think everybody advocating for even more gun control needs to put a nice 24" sign on their yard saying "This home not protected by firearms." For some reason most people hesitate to do that. It's like herd immunity for viruses. General gun ownership keeps everybody safer even if they don't own one, criminals don't like to confront armed people.

"By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.)"

I checked...you're right.
Survey respondents were asked about unfair treatment of blacks in seven specific institutions or realms of community life: the police, the court system, the workplace, stores and restaurants, public schools, the health care system and elections.
49% of whites answered there was none in any of those categories.
What's worse is, when taken individually, it averages out to only 20% of whites think blacks are treated more poorly than whites in those categories. (37% say cops are biased, 13% say voting is).
I'm astonished at those numbers, even if they're 4 years old.

Where to start? You're provably wrong on every single point you made.

It's actually been made clear he mistook a political anti-immigrant interviewee and clips from their movie (already debunked, btw) he watched on Fox for a news report on crime in Sweden.

2016 Swedish crime surveys showed a stable crime rate over the last decade, no marked rise. This was just one of the falsehoods in the movie/interview, and a good example of why getting his "information" from Breitbart and Fox and discarding the intelligence community as political opponents is treason level incompetence.

The vast majority of voters don't, and didn't support him. He lost the election, bigly, he only won the electoral college.

There are so many reasons he's a disaster to talk about that we need every mouth available on the job. ;-)

No, I said the opposite of what you said. You said they didn't come out to vote against Obama, they did, but more came out to vote for Trump. Now you say there weren't enough of them to help Trump, who lost by 3000000 votes so couldn't afford to lose many, and you claim to have some numbers proving that, but don't offer any.

Here's the thing, it's not either or. Clinton lost tons of Democratic and independent voters, Trump gained tons of racist voters. Either one being different would change the outcome.

Trump won because of racists, not all Trump voters are racists, but they are all willing to stand with racists.

I'm pretty sure this election had more people voting across party lines than any previous.

Nope, the best survey, the election, showed 3000000 more supported her ideals over his promise of jerbs.

People at least expect politicians to be sane, rational, and not think they know more than everyone on the planet on every topic. There is no logical reason to think Trump won't bankrupt the country like he did so many businesses. He thinks that's good business.

Is it that hard to agree with me?

Your just rewording exactly what I said. Your just rewording exactly what Bill Burr said. Trump didn't win by bringing out a whole bunch of brand new racist voters that stayed home when Obama was running. It was Hillary's failures, and her party's failures that were the difference in Trumps win.

I know that leads to a more uncomfortable reality were we don't have the black and white ability to blame everything on the evil racists who voted Trump in, but it is the reality. Clinton and her party LOST the votes of too many people, the numbers on the Republican side show pretty clearly it wasn't extra votes Trump gained by courting racists that turned the election.

That reality though demands a lot of self reflection from the Democratic party about how they failed and why, and they have to do it at the time when the country needs them as a counter balance the most. The trick is, if they don't get back the voters they lost they can't be a counter balance.

Here's part of the problem: people blaming Trumps win on racists voting for him, or choosing to believe that everyone who voted for Trump is a racist. That's just not the reality that is confronting you guys in the US. Most voters in this election, like all the past elections, voted their party ticket as they and their grandpa always have. That's the one of the biggest influences on how folks vote. Surveys also show that given the choice between a ideals and jobs, people choose jobs. The democratic party was promising carbon taxation at the same time as Trump was promising to bring back coal and oil jobs. Now all the counties that rely on coal or oil have a very different reason to vote for Trump outside of his racist remarks.

Oh, and check out Bill Clinton's remarks on Robert Byrd. Does that association to the KKK make it hard for racists to choose between Trump and Clinton?

People don't trust politicians in general and assume them all to be evil, corrupt and untrustworthy so dismissing some of Trumps worse parts came a bit easier for many.

To me, they were 100% acceptable, and *almost* entirely out of uncanny valley territory.

Two possible sources for my tolerance are lots of time spent playing video games, and a highly introverted nature. Would be interesting to see survey results to see if there is any positive correlation between those or other factors and being generally easier to impress / satisfy with CG movie effects.

I think Nerdwriter's knowledge of AWS is superficial (he admitted just finding out about them). AWS are not licensing their tech to other companies, they are renting time out on servers using their tech (mostly software). That graphic he showed of market share is also misleading - if you look closely it's just survey results of "do you use x,y,z cloud provider(s)?" (although undoubtedly AWS is the most popular by any measurement of # of customers, but it's not necessarily the biggest - hard to say because Microsoft, Google, and Amazon don't publish their numbers).
Renting time out on a server is orders of magnitude more scalable than installing and maintaining a bunch of sensors at thousands of retail locations.
Since their patents are vague enough, they could license that "idea" out to other companies who want to attempt the same thing, but probably they want full control of any brick-and-mortar store, to minimize support costs, and provide a consistent experience.
Plus, not every retail experience is like a grocery store, so it's a bit of a stretch to say they'll take over all retail everywhere...

It reminds me of the ancient Roman surveying device, the Hodometer, which used pebbles dropped into a bowl to count the number of Roman (~1500m) miles travelled.

http://johns-spot112948.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/ancient-roman-pedometer-called.html

The Navy Frogmen surveying the islands in the Pacific to prepare for the Marines amphib landings left it on signs ashore. My father saw them on Tarawa, Tinian, Saipan, and Okinawa.

I think you're missing the point. I propose that we execute anyone that poses a threat to the general public. That means anyone who commits a violent crime (or threatens to commit a violent crime) regardless of their mental state. People who are mentally ill tend to be less predictable (making them a greater threat in general) but the punishment should be the same regardless. You stab someone, you are executed. You threaten to stab someone, you are executed. You attempt to stab someone, you are executed.

As for being a janitor, most people don't want to clean toilets or mop floors even if they get paid to do so. It's a last resort when nothing better is available. If you took a survey of janitors and asked how many would rather have a different job even if it paid the same, I'm pretty sure most say that they want a different job. Janitors are definitely a necessity and I appreciate their work but I would never want to actually be one myself.

My point...the police (for the most part) know it doesn't work, yet they continue to use it as a 'tool' to trick people....people who think it DOES work....so teaching them that the cops are lying to them (again) about this is 100% appropriate and useful information for them.

I had no idea what you were saying about Africa...let's drop it.
If 1/2 million people (a HUGE number, and yet I think not 1/100 of the likely true number) still believe in them, that's 500000 people out there ready to convict you based on lies...and it's probably 100 times more than that. Americans were told for decades that lie detectors work, and barely told at all that that was all a lie. Many many people believe in them as factual devices, not just boxes to trick people with.
EDIT: The same could be said today for fingerprint evidence...which the public perception is that it's an infallible science (just like we were told about lie detectors), when the truth is it's closer to an interpretive art form than a science.

As to your second post...plenty of people still believe, far more than you give credit for, and these people may sit on a jury. If you have one person who KNOWS that lie detectors work, and 11 who think they don't, but aren't sure, the mere mention of 'the defendant failed a lie detector repeatedly' during closing can put many a defendant in prison....and has.
Again, I think you give the public too much credit, first by saying that only .3% think lie detectors work...I would bet that a survey would show more like 10% still think that, and the idea that the rest of us all KNOW for certain that they don't, and can't be convinced by one of the 10%.
For those, and other reasons, repeating 'lie detectors are liars' over and over is proper and useful to both those who don't know, and those who do.

Thanks for the detailed response. I'll tuck it away as data for my informal survey.

I discovered Kathleen Madigan a couple of years ago and loved her. I don't know why she isn't more well known. I get pretty bored by most stand up -- Louis CK being an exception. Thanks for the link -- I'm definitely going to watch it.

And thanks for taking me at face value. Really refreshing.

@Mordhaus I don't know if your comment was quasi-directed at me. I'm going to pretend it was.

I was awkward in my phrasing, but I was actually doing a tiny little survey.

My question really is -- IF YOU ARE A FEMINIST, are you more likely to find Amy funny? IF YOU ARE AWARE OF THE BODY AND SEXUALITY ISSUES OF WOMEN, are you more likely to find Amy funny?

I don't know if Ulysses is male or female for sure. It is just a guess that that avatar and that name makes that person male.

I have a gender neutral name and my avatar is a tribute to my father who died two months ago. So you can't tell my gender from the information presented here.

And you are absolutely right. Funny is what is funny to you.

I'm just curious who "you" is and if it might have a bearing on whether or not Amy is funny to you.

Tina Fey thinks she is funny. Tina Fey is a feminist. All the people I know who like her are feminists.

I was just asking.