jrh72582
Well-Known Member
He's simply going to call these numbers skewed without providing any of his own, basically disregarding the fact that you're RIGHT!
Or better yet he will just move onto something completely different and say see I told you so, this monkey has no tail so it is a ape. Thus proving his point.
again free speech is great. that doesn't extend to slander, which calling someone an idiot or moron is. it doesn't help advance anything except bad blood on both sides.
the diversionary tactics of FOX, such as birth certificates and whether or not HIS PARENTS were citizens (not necesary to be prez) only confuse issues and keep people tuned out. THAT is the desire of those in power.
Calling someone idiot or moron is NOT slander. You can't sue someone for calling you names. Slander is when something you falsely said harms their standing in the community or their reputation. If you do it to a very wide audience over TV or radio ( Internet) it is called Libel because of its potential to reach a large audience. If you told ABC news that Pres Obama was caught having sex with 10 year old boys and it was false, then that is Libel, but calling him an Idiotic Moron is only the truth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------again free speech is great. that doesn't extend to slander, which calling someone an idiot or moron is. it doesn't help advance anything except bad blood on both sides.
the diversionary tactics of FOX, such as birth certificates and whether or not HIS PARENTS were citizens (not necesary to be prez) only confuse issues and keep people tuned out. THAT is the desire of those in power.
Says the carpenter that can't spell......lol you guys crack me upOh Obama is an idiot and makes that obvious daily. I got a front row seat and watched him in the Illinois senate. He is not an intelligent man and his presidency so far as proven that. If he is not fed words via a telprompter he babbles and stutters and cant rememeber what he just saidf. He took speech classes to emulate his cadence in the style of JFK and Martin luther King to play on peoples rememberence. But his actions make it very apparent of his lack of intelligence. hell look at who he surroiunds himsself with...dummies and piss poor crooks. If he was smart he would have used good crooks and those who dont leave big firey trails to thier illegal conduct
So you couldn't figure out what skewed the numbers.... I am not surprised...not surprised at all.
Oh Obama is an idiot and makes that obvious daily. I got a front row seat and watched him in the Illinois senate. He is not an intelligent man and his presidency so far as proven that. If he is not fed words via a telprompter he babbles and stutters and cant rememeber what he just saidf. He took speech classes to emulate his cadence in the style of JFK and Martin luther King to play on peoples rememberence. But his actions make it very apparent of his lack of intelligence. hell look at who he surroiunds himsself with...dummies and piss poor crooks. If he was smart he would have used good crooks and those who dont leave big firey trails to thier illegal conduct
This dude is a fucking genius. And aside the fact that wiki put in global warming and not climate change, you will find very little to shit talk this guy.Steven Chu, Ph.D (born February 28, 194,[3] is an American physicist and currently the 12th United States Secretary of Energy. As a scientist, Chu is known for his research in cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997.[3] At the time of his appointment as Energy Secretary, he was a professor of physics and molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Berkeley and the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where his research was concerned primarily with the study of biological systems at the single molecule level.[1] He is a vocal advocate for more research into alternative energy and nuclear power, arguing that a shift away from fossil fuels is essential to combat global warming.[4][5][6]
So you couldn't figure out what skewed the numbers.... I am not surprised...not surprised at all.
Do a little more digging for some UK numbers.In 2002-2004, Oregon’s neonatal mortality rate was nearly 20 • percent lower than the 2004 U.S.13 average (3.8 versus 4.5 neonatal deaths per 1,000 live births, respectively). Although Oregon’s rate has remained consistently below the U.S. average over the last ten years, Oregon has not achieved the Healthy People 2010 target of 2.9 neonatal deaths per 1,000 live births.
The latest figures from the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH) Perinatal Mortality Surveillance Report 2007 show improvements in the stillbirth and neonatal death rates in the UK.
The main findings are:
• The lowest neonatal death rate since 2000 (3.3 per 1, 000 live births).
• Teenage mothers (< 20 years old) had the highest neonatal mortality rate (4.4 per 1,000 live births) when compared to other maternal age groups. Teenage maternities contributed to 9.5% of the overall neonatal mortality rate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Researchers suggest that the high rate may be a result of other associated risk factors such as social deprivation and a higher preterm delivery rate amongst this group.
JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF THAILAND = CHOTMAIHET THANGPHAET Vol. 92 Issue 5 May 2009
.....and the early neonatal mortality rate was 3.97 per 1,000 live-births
Do I have to do everything????
Low birth weight infants are not counted against the live birth statistics for many countries reporting low infant mortality rates.
According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing <500g is not considered a living child.
But in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live births. The mortality rate of such babies considered unsalvageable outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive is extraordinarily high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews U.S. infant mortality statistics.
When Canada briefly registered an increased number of low weight babies previously omitted from statistical reporting, the infant mortality rose from 6.1 per 1,000 to 6.4 per thousand in just one year.
According to research done by Canadas Bureau of Reproductive and Child Health, Comparisons of infant mortality rates by place and time should be adjusted for the proportion of such live births, especially if the comparisons involve recent years.
Norway boasts one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world. But when the main determinant of mortality weight at birth is factored in, Norway has no better survival rates than the United States.
Laughable. Sincerely laughable. And to think, I used to at least respect your opinion....
Wait a second......what's that......what's that sound?
Oh, it's Cracker tripping over his rationalizations. Are you okay buddy?
I love that you recently are told something and then you pretend that it is your own hrd work and knowledge that this comes from. How am I supposed to know what your being told on a day by day basis?Do I have to do everything????
Low birthweight is the primary risk factor for infant mortality and most of the decline in neonatal mortality (deaths of infants less than 28 days old) in the United States since 1970 can be attributed to increased rates of survival among low-birthweight newborns. Indeed, comparisons with countries for which data are available suggest that low birthweight newborns have better chances of survival in the United States than elsewhere. The U.S. infant mortality problem arises primarily because of its birthweight distribution; relatively more infants are born at low birthweight in the United States than in most other industrialized countries. Unfortunately, little progress has been made in reducing U.S. low birthweight rates, which would further improve infant mortality rates.
Let’s take the data for men. The study makes a big point of saying that France is much better than the US, so we will use those two countries. In 2003, France has an "amenable disease" death rate 56 points lower than the US. But we can see that almost this whole gap, or 42 points of it, comes from heart and circulatory diseases. The incidence of these diseases are highly related to diet and lifestyle. In fact, it is well established that the US has a comparatively high incidence rate of these diseases, much higher than France. This makes it entirely possible that this mortality difference is entirely due to lifestyle differences and disease incidence rates rather than the relative merits of health care systems. In fact, this study is close to meaningless. If they really wanted to make a point about the quality of health care systems, they would compare them on relative mortality with a denominator of the disease incidence rate, not a denominator of total population.