HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » marble falls » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 26 Next »

marble falls

Profile Information

Name: herb morehead
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: marble falls, tx
Member since: Thu Feb 23, 2012, 03:49 AM
Number of posts: 8,704

Journal Archives

Weed safer than heroin, the DEA says. Who already knew? Everybody. Weed also safer than the DEA

Weed safer than heroin, the DEA says. Who already knew? Everybody. Weed also safer than the DEA

by
Meteor Blades
Follow

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/08/1410019/-Weed-safer-than-heroin-the-DEA-says-Who-already-knew-Everybody-Weed-also-safer-than-the-DEA

marijuana
Not as bad as heroin. Not as bad as the DEA.

Wonders never cease:

It’s finally happened – the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has admitted that marijuana is “clearly” safer than heroin. Though this isn’t news to science, it represents a small but significant shift in the DEA who had previously refused to acknowledge that marijuana is less dangerous than heroin.

The science has been clear on the matter for a while. Not only is marijuana safer than heroin, but drug experts broadly agree that it’s also safer than alcohol. Yet, both drugs continue to be Schedule I controlled substances. According to the DEA, marijuana and heroin “have no currently accepted medical use in the United States, a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and a high potential for abuse.”

The DEA’s acknowledgment follows a recent study released earlier this week that has challenged previous research linking teenage marijuana use with physical and mental health issues. Research on marijuana has been widely conflicted for the last few decades due to different methodologies and various factors that are difficult to control for.

The DEA's budget soared from $75 million in 1973 to $3 billion in 2014.

Throughout its lifespan, the DEA has killed innocent people, including teenagers. Corrupt agents have made millions, on occasion stealing bundles of cash during drug busts. The list of DEA violence and corruption goes on and on.

The agency also has spent years rejecting the scientific evidence that marijuana should be taken off the Schedule I list of proscribed substances. Which has meant millions of people—that's not hyperbole—have had their lives ruined by being jailed or imprisoned or otherwise sanctioned for possession or sale of the weed. Student loans and other government aid continues to be denied for people convicted of marijuana-related crimes.

So, hip, hip, hurray that after more than four decades of reckless, murderous, ruinous policies backed up by lies of commission and omission, a tiny bit of sanity has appeared at DEA HQ.

Perhaps we'll see some sanity appear elsewhere in the federal government soon and this corrupt and obsolete agency will be dismantled and Americans whose lives have been upended from sentencing for drug crimes that shouldn't be crimes will have their terms commuted and the stigma of criminality expunged from their records.

But I won't be making any wagers on such an outcome.

Hillary Clinton Is Running Away from Her Free Trade Record


Hillary Clinton Is Running Away from Her Free Trade Record
She is betting that few voters will notice the gap between her rhetoric and her own record.
By David Sirota / AlterNet
August 6, 2015


In her quest for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton has lately promoted herself as a populist defender of the middle class. To that end, she attempted to distance herself last week from a controversial 12-nation trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would set the rules of commerce for roughly 40 percent of the world's economy.

As with similar business-backed trade pacts, labor unions, environmental groups and public health organizations are warning that the deal could result in job losses, reduced environmental standards, higher prices for medicine and more power for corporations looking to overturn public interest laws. And so, in her quest for Democratic primary votes, Clinton is suddenly trying to cast herself as a critic of the initiative.

"I did not work on TPP," she said after a meeting with leaders of labor unions who oppose the pact. "I advocated for a multinational trade agreement that would 'be the gold standard.' But that was the responsibility of the United States Trade Representative."

The trouble, of course, is that Clinton's declaration does not square with the facts.

CNN has reported that during her tenure as U.S. secretary of state, Clinton publicly promoted the pact 45 separate times. At a congressional hearing in 2011, Clinton told lawmakers that "with respect to the TPP, although the State Department does not have the lead on this -- it is the United States Trade Representative -- we work closely with the USTR." Additionally, secret State Department cables published by the website WikiLeaks show that her agency -- including her top aides -- were deeply involved in the diplomatic deliberations over the trade deal.

In a series of cables in late 2009 and 2010, State Department officials outlined their extensive discussions about the pact with government officials from New Zealand. At one point, State Department officials in that country requested an additional employee to specifically "allow the Economics Officer to focus on preparations for Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations."

Similarly, a September 2009 cable detailed Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg, specifically discussing the TPP with Vietnam's Deputy Prime Minister. In a November 2009 cable, the U.S. embassy in Tokyo detailed TPP discussions between Japanese government officials and Robert Hormats, a former Goldman Sachs executive who was then serving as Clinton's undersecretary of state. In a December 2009 cable, State Department officials in Hanoi reported that the U.S. Ambassador "hosted a dinner on December 21 for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement country representatives." The cable thanked the Clinton-run State Department for providing "regular updates" that "have been key to helping us answer the many TPP-related inquiries we receive."

Meanwhile, in a January 2010 cable, State Department embassy officials in Kuala Lumpur advised Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Demetrios Marantis on strategies to negotiate the TPP with the Malaysian government.

The involvement of the Clinton-led State Department in the TPP is hardly surprising: In June, CBS News reported that "a senior administration official told CBS News Correspondent Julianna Goldman that Clinton was one of the biggest backers of TPP." In a Bloomberg News interview that same month, President Obama's National Security Adviser Susan Rice disputed the idea that Clinton was not involved in the TPP.

"She was integrally involved in all of the major initiatives of the first term of the administration," said Rice, who served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations when Clinton was Secretary of State. "She was instrumental in formulating and implementing the rebalance to Asia, of which the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a part."

Considering all the evidence, Clinton nonetheless pretending she had nothing to do with TPP is clearly a strategic calculation: She is betting that few voters will notice the gap between her rhetoric and her own record. It is certainly a cynical tactic. Time will tell if it is a politically shrewd one.
David Sirota is a best-selling author of the new book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.

Hillary Clinton Says She Didn’t Work on the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Hillary Clinton Says She Didn’t Work on the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Reposted because it was originally posted in wrong place.

By David Sirota


In her quest for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton has lately promoted herself as a populist defender of the middle class. To that end, she attempted to distance herself last week from a controversial 12-nation trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would set the rules of commerce for roughly 40 percent of the world’s economy.


As with similar business-backed trade pacts, labor unions, environmental groups and public health organizations are warning that the deal could result in job losses, reduced environmental standards, higher prices for medicine and more power for corporations looking to overturn public interest laws. And so, in her quest for Democratic primary votes, Clinton is suddenly trying to cast herself as a critic of the initiative.


“I did not work on TPP,” she said after a meeting with leaders of labor unions who oppose the pact. “I advocated for a multinational trade agreement that would ‘be the gold standard.’ But that was the responsibility of the United States Trade Representative.”

The trouble, of course, is that Clinton’s declaration does not square with the facts.

CNN has reported that during her tenure as U.S. secretary of state, Clinton publicly promoted the pact 45 separate times. At a congressional hearing in 2011, Clinton told lawmakers that “with respect to the TPP, although the State Department does not have the lead on this—it is the United States Trade Representative—we work closely with the USTR.” Additionally, secret State Department cables published by the website WikiLeaks show that her agency—including her top aides—were deeply involved in the diplomatic deliberations over the trade deal.

In a series of cables in late 2009 and 2010, State Department officials outlined their extensive discussions about the pact with government officials from New Zealand. At one point, State Department officials in that country requested an additional employee to specifically “allow the Economics Officer to focus on preparations for Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations.”

Similarly, a September 2009 cable detailed Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg, specifically discussing the TPP with Vietnam’s Deputy Prime Minister. In a November 2009 cable, the U.S. embassy in Tokyo detailed TPP discussions between Japanese government officials and Robert Hormats, a former Goldman Sachs executive who was then serving as Clinton’s undersecretary of state. In a December 2009 cable, State Department officials in Hanoi reported that the U.S. Ambassador “hosted a dinner on December 21 for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement country representatives.” The cable thanked the Clinton-run State Department for providing “regular updates” that “have been key to helping us answer the many TPP-related inquiries we receive.”

Meanwhile, in a January 2010 cable, State Department embassy officials in Kuala Lumpur advised Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Demetrios Marantis on strategies to negotiate the TPP with the Malaysian government.

The involvement of the Clinton-led State Department in the TPP is hardly surprising: In June, CBS News reported that “a senior administration official told CBS News Correspondent Julianna Goldman that Clinton was one of the biggest backers of TPP.” In a Bloomberg News interview that same month, President Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice disputed the idea that Clinton was not involved in the TPP.

“She was integrally involved in all of the major initiatives of the first term of the administration,” said Rice, who served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations when Clinton was Secretary of State. “She was instrumental in formulating and implementing the rebalance to Asia, of which the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a part.”

Considering all the evidence, Clinton nonetheless pretending she had nothing to do with TPP is clearly a strategic calculation: She is betting that few voters will notice the gap between her rhetoric and her own record. It is certainly a cynical tactic. Time will tell if it is a politically shrewd one.

David Sirota is a senior writer at the International Business Times and the best-selling author of the books “Hostile Takeover,” “The Uprising” and “Back to Our Future.” Email him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.

© 2015 CREATORS.COM


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hillary_clinton_says_she_did_not_work_on_the_trans-pacific_partnership_2015
Posted by marble falls | Sun Aug 9, 2015, 09:09 AM (2 replies)

Hillary Clinton Says She Didn’t Work on the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Hillary Clinton Says She Didn’t Work on the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Posted on Aug 7, 2015

By David Sirota


In her quest for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton has lately promoted herself as a populist defender of the middle class. To that end, she attempted to distance herself last week from a controversial 12-nation trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would set the rules of commerce for roughly 40 percent of the world’s economy.


As with similar business-backed trade pacts, labor unions, environmental groups and public health organizations are warning that the deal could result in job losses, reduced environmental standards, higher prices for medicine and more power for corporations looking to overturn public interest laws. And so, in her quest for Democratic primary votes, Clinton is suddenly trying to cast herself as a critic of the initiative.


“I did not work on TPP,” she said after a meeting with leaders of labor unions who oppose the pact. “I advocated for a multinational trade agreement that would ‘be the gold standard.’ But that was the responsibility of the United States Trade Representative.”

The trouble, of course, is that Clinton’s declaration does not square with the facts.

CNN has reported that during her tenure as U.S. secretary of state, Clinton publicly promoted the pact 45 separate times. At a congressional hearing in 2011, Clinton told lawmakers that “with respect to the TPP, although the State Department does not have the lead on this—it is the United States Trade Representative—we work closely with the USTR.” Additionally, secret State Department cables published by the website WikiLeaks show that her agency—including her top aides—were deeply involved in the diplomatic deliberations over the trade deal.

In a series of cables in late 2009 and 2010, State Department officials outlined their extensive discussions about the pact with government officials from New Zealand. At one point, State Department officials in that country requested an additional employee to specifically “allow the Economics Officer to focus on preparations for Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations.”

Similarly, a September 2009 cable detailed Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg, specifically discussing the TPP with Vietnam’s Deputy Prime Minister. In a November 2009 cable, the U.S. embassy in Tokyo detailed TPP discussions between Japanese government officials and Robert Hormats, a former Goldman Sachs executive who was then serving as Clinton’s undersecretary of state. In a December 2009 cable, State Department officials in Hanoi reported that the U.S. Ambassador “hosted a dinner on December 21 for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement country representatives.” The cable thanked the Clinton-run State Department for providing “regular updates” that “have been key to helping us answer the many TPP-related inquiries we receive.”

Meanwhile, in a January 2010 cable, State Department embassy officials in Kuala Lumpur advised Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Demetrios Marantis on strategies to negotiate the TPP with the Malaysian government.

The involvement of the Clinton-led State Department in the TPP is hardly surprising: In June, CBS News reported that “a senior administration official told CBS News Correspondent Julianna Goldman that Clinton was one of the biggest backers of TPP.” In a Bloomberg News interview that same month, President Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice disputed the idea that Clinton was not involved in the TPP.

“She was integrally involved in all of the major initiatives of the first term of the administration,” said Rice, who served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations when Clinton was Secretary of State. “She was instrumental in formulating and implementing the rebalance to Asia, of which the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a part.”

Considering all the evidence, Clinton nonetheless pretending she had nothing to do with TPP is clearly a strategic calculation: She is betting that few voters will notice the gap between her rhetoric and her own record. It is certainly a cynical tactic. Time will tell if it is a politically shrewd one.

David Sirota is a senior writer at the International Business Times and the best-selling author of the books “Hostile Takeover,” “The Uprising” and “Back to Our Future.” Email him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.

© 2015 CREATORS.COM


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hillary_clinton_says_she_did_not_work_on_the_trans-pacific_partnership_2015

Why Israel’s Security Experts Support the Iran Deal—and Iran’s Hard-Liners Don’t

Why Israel’s Security Experts Support the Iran Deal—and Iran’s Hard-Liners Don’t
Posted on Aug 7, 2015

By Joe Conason

<snip>

As Congressional Republicans seek to undermine the nuclear agreement between Iran and the international powers, they assert that hardline Islamists in the Islamic Republic are delighted with the deal while Israelis concerned over their country’s security are appalled. The same theme is now repeated constantly on Fox News Channel and throughout right-wing media.

But that message is largely false—and in very important respects, the opposite is true.

<snip>

Indeed, while vast throngs of Iranians greeted their government’s negotiators in a joyous welcome, the fanatical reactionaries in the Revolutionary Guard and the paramilitary Basij movement—which have violently repressed democratic currents in Iran—could barely control their outrage. Upon reading the terms, a Basij spokesman said last month, “We quickly realized that what we feared ... had become a reality. If Iran agrees with this, our nuclear industry will be handcuffed for many years to come.”


Hoping and perhaps praying for a veto by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, their supreme leader, the Basijis, the right-wing media in Tehran, and their regime sponsors pointed to “red lines” that the agreement allegedly crossed.

“We will never accept it,” said Mohammed Ali Jafari, a high-ranking Revolutionary Guard commander.

Such shrill expressions of frustration should encourage everyone who understands the agreement’s real value. Iran’s “Death to America, Death to Israel” cohort hates this deal—not only because of its highly restrictive provisions, but because over the long term, it strengthens their democratic opponents and threatens their corrupt control of Iranian society.

In Israel, meanwhile, the alarmist criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—a sage whose confident predictions about Iran, Iraq, and almost everything else are reliably, totally wrong—has obscured support from actual military and intelligence leaders. Like experts in this country and around the world, the best-informed Israelis understand the deal’s imperfections very well—and support it nevertheless.

“There are no ideal agreements,” declared Ami Ayalon, a military veteran who headed the Israeli Navy and later oversaw the Jewish state’s security service, the Shin Bet. But as Ayalon explained to J.J. Goldberg of the Forward, this agreement is “the best possible alternative from Israel’s point of view, given the other available alternatives”—including the most likely alternative which is, as Obama explained, another extremely dangerous Mideast war.

Efraim Halevy, who formerly ran the Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence service, and later headed its National Security Council, concurs with Ayalon (and Obama). Writing in Yedioth Aharonoth, the national daily published in Tel Aviv, Halevy points out a profound contradiction in Netanyahu’s blustering complaints. Having warned that an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose a unique existential threat to Israel, how can Bibi logically reject the agreement that forestalls any bomb development for at least 15 years and increases the “breakout time” from one month to a year—even if Iran ultimately violates its commitments?

Such a deal is far preferable to no deal, the ex-Mossad chief insists, although it won’t necessarily dissuade Tehran from making trouble elsewhere. Halevy also emphasizes that no mythical “better” deal would ever win support from Russia and China, Iran’s main weapons suppliers, whose leaders have endorsed this agreement.

In short, both of these top former officials believe the agreement with Iran will enhance their nation’s security—and contrary to what Fox News Channel’s sages might claim, they represent mainstream opinion in Israel’s military and intelligence circles.

So perhaps we can safely discount the partisan demagogues and feckless opportunists who claim to be protecting the Jewish state from Barack Obama. And when someone like Mike Huckabee—who memorably escaped military service because of his “flat feet”—denounces the president for “marching Israelis to the oven door,” let’s remember the sane and serious response of Israel’s most experienced defenders.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_israels_security_experts_support_the_iran_deal_-_and_irans_hardliners_d
Posted by marble falls | Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:07 AM (0 replies)

Rick Perry: Pro Education!

?oh=19e6261d260707190c8938a1dbcef37d&oe=564B97D9
Posted by marble falls | Thu Aug 6, 2015, 07:57 PM (1 replies)

A year after Ferguson, whites are far more likely to admit racism is a problem


A year after Ferguson, whites are far more likely to admit racism is a problem

Tribune Washington Bureau
David Lauter and Matt Pearce
10 hrs ago

http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBlqT5o.img?h=499&w=728&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1202&y=593

Protestors demonstrate during a silent protest in the streets of downtown St. Louis, Missouri on March 14, 2015.© Michael B. Thomas/AFP/Getty Images Protestors demonstrate during a silent protest in the streets of downtown St. Louis, Missouri on March 14, 2015. WASHINGTON — After a year of high-profile police shootings of black Americans, many captured on video, racial attitudes among Americans — particularly whites — have undergone a significant shift.

A majority of whites now say the country needs to do more to make equal rights a reality, and a significantly larger number of white Americans say blacks are treated less fairly than others by law enforcement officials, according to several newly released polls.

The share who say racism is a "big problem" in the U.S. has grown significantly as well.

Asked whether the country "needs to continue making changes to give blacks equal rights with whites" or whether it already has "made the changes needed," Americans by just short of 2-1 now say more change is needed, according to a new survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.

A majority of whites, 53 percent, agrees that more change is needed, according to the Pew survey and a separate poll by The Washington Post and ABC News, which asked the same question.

The polls, both released Wednesday, come as the country approaches the Aug. 9 anniversary of the death of Michael Brown, the black teenager whose shooting by an officer in Ferguson, Mo., focused new attention on police use of force against blacks and other racial minorities.

The shifts are significant. For the last several years, fewer than 4 in 10 whites have said that the country needs more change to achieve equality. Instead, a majority of whites consistently has said that the country already had "made the changes needed."

Some of the activists involved in protests the last year over police shootings took the shift in public opinion as at least a partial vindication.

"Man, that's good, that's huge," said Tony Rice, one of the most prominent of Ferguson's activists.

Rice, who has spent considerable time over the past year on a campaign to persuade white and black voters to recall Ferguson's mayor, said white residents have often told him that the news during the last year has caused them to rethink racial issues.

"They said, 'We had no idea what you guys were being treated like,'" he said. "My thing was, 'Hey, we tried to tell you, you just didn't listen,'" Rice said.

"Now they're starting to listen. That's what it comes down to," he said. "I'll take it."

DeRay Mckesson, a prominent activist in the Black Lives Matter movement, called the shift in attitudes "an acknowledgement of the impact of racism" that black Americans have long experienced. That's a testament to the impact the protests in Ferguson and elsewhere have had, he said.

But a change in attitude is only partial progress, he added. "It will be important," he added, "that knowledge translates into action, that people use their privilege to dismantle racist structures and systems," he said.

Even among African-Americans, the already large number who say the country needs to make more changes has grown in the last year, the polls found, reaching 86 percent in the Pew survey. Latinos also say by large margins that more changes are needed.

Among whites, a big part of the shift in attitudes has come from Republicans.

The GOP remains more conservative on racial issues than either Democrats or Americans who do not identify with either party. A majority of Republicans, for example, say that the country already has made the necessary changes to achieve equality.

But among Republicans, the share who say the country needs to change further has grown 15 points over the last year, Pew found.

By contrast with the partisan splits on racial issues, the numbers, surprisingly, don't vary much between older and younger Americans.

Another measure — the share of Americans who say that racism in the U.S. is a "big problem" — has also shown a significant increase. Today, half of the country says racism is a "big problem," Pew found, up from one-third who said so five years ago and one-quarter who held that view at the time Barack Obama was inaugurated as the nation's first black president.

Among whites, just over 4 in 10 now see racism as a "big problem," up from 1 in 4 when the question was last asked in 2010. A majority of blacks, 73 percent, and Latinos, 58 percent, call racism a big problem.

On that question too, a large share of the change has come from those who identify as Republican. The share in the GOP who say racism is a big problem has grown to 41 percent, up from just 17 percent in 2010.

Among Democrats, just under two-thirds see racism as a big problem, a number that has grown somewhat since 2010.

The percentage of Americans who described racism as a "big problem" fell from the mid-1990s, reaching a low point around the time of Obama's election, which many Americans, including many blacks, took as an indicator that the country had, finally, turned a page on its long history of racial discrimination.

Now, however, the Pew poll, as well as a recent New York Times/CBS News survey, shows a sharp turnaround in attitudes. Americans are less sanguine about racial equality and more aware of tensions, the polls indicate.

The share of white Americans who say that blacks have an "equal chance" of "getting ahead in today's society," for example, has dropped by 10 points since last year and now stands at 51 percent, the New York Times/CBS survey found.

Polls can't explain why attitudes have shifted, but some analysts say social media has had a major impact.

Social media has taken conversations that in the past would have taken place in "private spaces" and made them visible to a wider community, said Meredith Clark, an assistant professor at the Mayborn School of Journalism at the University of North Texas who is conducting a research project on the Black Lives Matter movement.

That has made it possible for people to encounter views they might have been too uncomfortable to ask directly about, she said.

"It would be awkward if your co-worker came in and asked how you felt about seeing Mike Brown's body on the ground in Ferguson last year," Clark said. With social media, "you can just survey the information."

That sort of change may have made white Americans more aware of the discrimination that non-whites experience.

A fourth poll, by Gallup, released this week, asked Americans whether they believe blacks are treated less fairly than others in a variety of situations. The poll found notable increases in the share of people who think blacks are discriminated against.

Just over 4 in 10 Americans say blacks are treated less fairly in dealing with the police, the poll found, up 6 points from 2007, when Gallup asked the question previously. A smaller share, about 1 in 4 Americans, say blacks are treated unfairly at stores and shopping malls. The share saying that has grown by 10 points, Gallup found.

Partisan divisions still remain a major factor on racial issues, however. That can be seen clearly in reactions to the decision by South Carolina officials to remove the Confederate flag from the grounds of their statehouse.

By 57 percent to 34 percent, a solid majority of Americans say the decision to take down the flag was the right one. Among Republicans, however, 49 percent say the decision to remove the flag was wrong, compared with 43 percent who agreed with it. Democrats overwhelmingly agree with the decision, 74 percent to 19 percent.

The large share of Republicans who disagree with taking down the flag suggests the issue could still be a potent one in GOP primaries. South Carolina holds one of the earliest primaries in the Republican presidential nomination process, and the Confederate flag has been an issue in that contest in previous election years.

The Pew poll was conducted July 14-20 among 2,002 American adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. The Washington Post/ABC poll was conducted July 29-Aug. 2 among 1,010 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 points. The Gallup poll was conducted June 15-July 10, among 2,296 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus four points.

———

(Lauter reported from Washington and Pearce from Los Angeles.)

© 2015 Microsoft



I think we might be reaching a tipping point!
Posted by marble falls | Thu Aug 6, 2015, 06:52 AM (1 replies)

From ACLU: Invasion of the Data Snatchers

Posted by marble falls | Tue Aug 4, 2015, 08:08 AM (3 replies)

Not sure where to put this, but I think its a good tool:

Posted by marble falls | Mon Aug 3, 2015, 08:30 AM (5 replies)

Racist women yelling the N word at mother and children all because kids splashed water on her

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 26 Next »