Obama a Socialist?-2nd request

It’s not correct to call obama a socialist. It’s not even correct to call him a communist. It’s much, much worse than that.

There’s no provision in the US Constitution for the government to provide what we now euphemistically call “health care”, and it’s 100% contrary to every single page of the Holy Bible. Obama is an anti-Christ, and this last election just proved to you that most Americans realize this. BEFORE obama was “elected” we already spent more than 14% of GDP for “health care”, up four fold since 1950, and two to four times as much as most other countries spend even though most of them have life expectancies four or five years longer than WHITES in this country. We passed the point of diminishing returns in 1960 and this “health care” system is already a monster out of control which has no future other than to become just like the one in Russia which provides NOTHING for Russian people, consumes 33% of GDP, and left the average Russian man with a life expectancy less than 59 years and still dropping.

Do the Republicans know this? Most of them do. Will they do anything about it? Probably not—even though their very own SCRIPTURE commands them to ship this shiftless nigger off to Africa at their very first opportunity for a MILLION different crimes, not the least of which are LYING about getting degrees from Columbia University and Harvard where he never even WENT to.

John Knight

From: Dennis Helbig
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 6:43 PM
To: Jeri006 ; informationhighwayman ; vandoran.heather ; Roger Gellar
Cc: colony14 ; finedude01 ; freedomrocks1776 ; salemst ; churi1001 ; mfineman01 ; harleymanfl ; kmcgee3 ; JMills9786 ; FKerogen ; jackstoneisright ; pasharabit ; JBoyle10 ; sergeantfreedom ; uwhunter ; chetmcwhortersr ; Stillpreaching ; sirdavid.andrew77 ; jimmybug ; teamworker ; laurenickysdad ; pio ; jerrypippin ; predatorbc ; 74526.3101 ; boldsaber ; onepocketplayer ; evedemian ; mferran ; pgurrieri ; smithjayr ; mccloediii ; jk ; jk ; kmcgee3 ; lascoti ; coffinman ; paul_dunk
Subject: Re: Obama a Socialist?-2nd request

Socialized medicine? Socialism movement began with FDR. My grandfather was al for it even tho he was a republican. I’m guessing it has to do with the Stephenites who emigrated to along the Mississippi. Can’t come up with the proper link any more.

— On Fri, 11/5/10, Roger Gellar <rgellar000@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Roger Gellar <rgellar000@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Obama a Socialist?-2nd request
To: Jeri006@aol.com, informationhighwayman@googlemail.com, vandoran.heather@yahoo.com
Cc: dennishelbig@yahoo.com, colony14@gmail.com, finedude01@aol.com, freedomrocks1776@comcast.net, salemst@aol.com, churi1001@gmail.com, mfineman01@aol.com, harleymanfl@cox.net, kmcgee3@aol.com, JMills9786@aol.com, FKerogen@aol.com, jackstoneisright@gmail.com, pasharabit@verizon.net, JBoyle10@aol.com, sergeantfreedom@gmail.com, uwhunter@earthlink.net, chetmcwhortersr@embarqmail.com, Stillpreaching@webtv.net, sirdavid.andrew77@gmail.com, jimmybug@rocketmail.com, teamworker@msn.com, generalcongress@constitutionalgov.us, laurenickysdad@aol.com, pio@godhatesamerica.com, jerrypippin@sbcglobal.net, predatorbc@aol.com, 74526.3101@compuserve.com, boldsaber@gmail.com, onepocketplayer@gmail.com, evedemian@verizon.net, mferran@nycap.rr.com, pgurrieri@verizon.net, smithjayr@verizon.net, mccloediii@dslextreme.com, jk@kensingtonmicro.com, jk@israeliteidentity.com, kmcgee3@aoi.com, lascoti@aol.com, coffinman@ntlworld.com, paul_dunk@msn.com
Date: Friday, November 5, 2010, 7:57 PM

Can someone please comment??

Subject: Re: Obama a Socialist?

I have a serious question about that as my friends claim he is a socialist based on his programs however the argument can be made as well for previous republican presidents.
Can you give ma an example of how he is a socialist?



German Study Confirms Grand Rapids Effects

Who is the safest American driver?

Join DAMN.

DAMN Candice Lightner and her Entire Crew of Misfits and Failed Parents

A great deal of manipulation of the data, and even ignoring a HUGE portion of the data which would have made the complete study worthless had the ignored data contained even a small percentage of drinking drivers, the very best science from government produced the following REMARKABLE ADMISSION:

<<< For all BAC classes above 0%, we found 330 drivers in the accident study. Of those accidents, 213 were attributable to the effects of alcohol. By dividing those two numbers, we obtain an AR for exposed persons of 213/330=0.65 or 65%. That means, 65% of all accidents involving an intoxicated driver can be attributed to the effects of alcohol. However, in only 16.8% of all accidents (or 330 accidents) was the driver intoxicated. To determine which proportion of all accidents are attributable to the effects of alcohol, the population AR should be computed. This is done by dividing the excess accidents by the total number of all accidents, that is, 213/1968=0.108. Thus, 10.8% of all accidents may be attributed to the effects of alcohol. >>>

In other words, the most expert government data manipulation proved that 89.2% of the fatal accidents in this study were NOT caused by alcohol, but were caused by OTHER factors. In other words, the average driver in this study was 8.3 TIMES more likely to be killed in an accident where alcohol was NOT a factor than he was to be killed in an accident where alcohol WAS a factor?

WHAT are these other factors? Why is it assumed that these other factors which are responsible for 89.2% of the accidents are not the IDENTICAL factors involved in the fatal accidents which “may be attributed to the effects of alcohol”?

  1. While the body of the study reports that 5.5% of German drivers in the Roadside Survey had a bac > 0, their Table 1 used to compare this data against the drivers involved in accidents shows that 605 of 9,043 drivers, or 6.7% of them, had a bac > 0.  Their own Table 1 is in serious conflict with their own conclusions. 
  2. It’s a serious problem that all of the drivers from the Roadside Survey were compared to only 1,968, or 28.2% of the 6,981 drivers involved in these 4,165 accidents.  You MUST compare all of both groups to each other to get a valid representation of the data.  You would never compare the subset of one group against all of another group–unless you had a particular goal in mind [read: unless you wanted to “prove statistically” that the drinking driver needs to be closely regulated]. 
  3. Another bit of evidence that they had such an agenda is that they never even mentioned how many drivers were involved in these 4,615 accidents.  We must estimate it based on the average of 1.51 drivers per accident in the US. 
  4. Where they estimated that 330 drinking drivers represented 16.7% of their subset of 1,968 drivers who were responsible for some subset of the accidents, we now see that drinking drivers were only 4.7% of all the drivers involved in these accidents.
  5. The number of drivers in the roadside study who were found to have a BAC greater than 0.01 (510 of them) was almost equal to the number of drivers who refused the test (501).
  6. While the result of these government efforts to curtail drunk drivers resulted in mostly men being punished, it failed to take into account women drivers who may have been 60-67% of the drivers involved in fatal accidents, both in this study as well as in the US.
  7. It failed to consider that a study in Germany where there are few blacks cannot be directly equated to American drivers where there are many black drivers who might constitute 81% to 99% of American drivers involved in fatal accidents.

Had this subset of 1,968 German drivers who were involved in 4,681 accidents been a randomly selected subset of all 6,981 drivers who were involved in these accidents, this might have been an acceptable statistical analysis.   But to compound the error, they admitted that this subset was not randomly selected. The subset included only the German drivers who the police themselves, not courts, and not the drivers, determined were “responsible” for the accident.   Note the wording “responsible”, and ask yourself how 5,013 or 71.8% of these German drivers could not have been “responsible” for an accident they were in.  To compound the error even further, they made the presumption that all drivers who had a bac > 0 were “responsible” for the accident, while 71.8% of the drivers were not.  This is great advocacy, but it’s terrible science.  It’s worse than “guilty unless you prove your innocence”, because drivers who were never even proven to have been “responsible” for the accident, who never even had a chance to present their case to a court of justice, were used as an excuse to terrorize German drivers all around Germany.

In other words, they started with a faulty premise, and when the data didn’t support that premise, they changed the statistical rules to make the data fit the faulty premise.  If you think drinking drivers are the criminals–then you don’t understand how serious the problems are that scientists like this have caused to societies all around the world.

If you’ve followed this so far, at least you now know why they wanted to compare the Roadside Survey against only a subset of the accident data–it made the drinking driver appear to be involved in 3 1/2 times as accidents as he was.  By comparison, police reports of American accidents show that only 4% are “alcohol involved”.   There are several reasons that this report may have concluded that .7% more German than American accidents are “alcohol involved”:

  1. Germans actually consume 50% more alcohol per capita than Americans.
  2. It could be that there are more drivers per accident in German accidents.
  3. They may have intentionally inflated the data.

The conclusions of this report would have been drastically different had the statistical analysis been done properly.   Where it appears that drinking drivers were only 5.5% of all drivers, but were 7.2% of all drivers involved in accidents (suggesting that alcohol was a factor in those accidents), we now know that drinking drivers are 6.7% of all the drivers, but are involved in only 4.7% of all of the accidents.  Where the odds ratio favored nondrinking drivers as 34.4% less likely than the drinking driver to have an accident, the odds ratio now favors the drinking driver to be 45.7% less likely than nondrinking drivers to have an accident.  Let’s put this another way.  The procedure used by the German statisticians “disclosed” that drinking drivers as a group were 32.7% more likely than nondrinking drivers as a group to have an accident,  whereas the correct procedure would have  shown that nondrinking drivers as a group are 45.7% more likely than the drinking drivers as a group to have an accident.