From the full article:

"It's kind of a peculiar concern in an age in which so much is being collected about us by folks other than the government. These are fairly benign questions," said Eschbach, a professor and health researcher at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, noting that the first census, in 1790, asked six questions."

The people who are "objecting" to the questions are just searching for the bogey man "big government" and will use any excuse to pretend they have found it.

noting that the first census, in 1790, asked six questions."

In other words, the ink wasn't even dry on the Constitution when they already started to ignore it.

They only need to ask one question, how many people live in a particular residence. Period, en of story.

"They only need to ask one question, how many people live in a particular residence. Period, en of story."

Since the census is used for determining how voting districts are set up they need more than just how many people live at an address. They need to know how many are qualified to vote. They also need to know how many children of school age live there.
There are lots of very legitimate reasons for the questions and it is only nit wits who let the right wing crazies convince them this is some sore of sinister plot.

They've been asking plenty of questions on the census byeond simple number counting for ages, in fact beginning with the first national census.

"In other words, the ink wasn't even dry on the Constitution when they already started to ignore it."

You ought to file a lawsuit with the intention of testing the constitutionality of the census and the questions it seeks to answer.

What a laugh.

The biggest problem with the census that Spud has is the fact that it tends to under-represent black folks from the inner cities and over represent white folks from rural areas.

Sampling would provide more realistic data and cost billions less.

Be Well.

The biggest problem with the census that Spud has is the fact that it tends to under-represent black folks from the inner cities and over represent white folks from rural areas.

I guess the blacks should choose to participate. It's not like they are being deliberately overlooked.

I am curious how white folks in rural area are over-represented. Are you saying census takers count 10 in a household when there are really 8? Or are you saying that being accurately counted is over-representation?

Sampling would provide more realistic data and cost billions less.

This sounds sinisteer to me. Liberals just hate white people, they should jsut be honest about it, they hate white people so they want to make up numbers from thin air.

Anyone have a link to this questionnaire?

Goat, Liberals hate the Senate precisely because they believe it gives too much power to rural white people. This talk about changing the Senate is nothing more than an attempt to change the type of government we have, from a republic to a democracy.

If LIberals could, they would change the Constituton so that white people are counted only as 3/5. In their warped logic, that would remedy the unfairness of the past.

Whatsamatta, member? Late on an alimony payment again?

Which question do you object to and why?

Are you for counting all the "undocumented immigrants"? Would you ask them more than one question?

I tend toward the head count only view as well. I don't like government questions. But I see nothing prohibiting voluntary responses beyond a head count.

"If LIberals could, they would change the Constituton so that white people are counted only as 3/5."

That 3/5 reference should embarrass you as a conservative but apparently you don't even see the irony in that it took Liberals to free those slaves your kind so happily considered 3/5 of a person.

My kind promotes freedom. It is your kind that wants to enslave people through government dependency.

"My kind promotes freedom. It is your kind that wants to enslave people through government dependency."

When you sleep do you dream in talking points?

"enslave people"....what a joke! Embarrassing and you're too dumb to even know it.

@ Danni #12:
"If LIberals could, they would change the Constituton so that white people are counted only as 3/5."

That 3/5 reference should embarrass you as a conservative but apparently you don't even see the irony in that it took Liberals to free those slaves your kind so happily considered 3/5 of a person.

Danni: You are showing your true leftist uneducated colors. Who was in office during the Civil War? Oh wait a second...It was a REPUBLICAN! Who freed the slaves...wait a second...REPUBLICAN again! Who's that old ass guy in Congress, connected to the KKK...Byrd...wait a second...he's a DEMOCRAT! Hummm peculiar...

"enslave people"....what a joke! Embarrassing and you're too dumb to even know it.

#15 | Posted by danni

Debt enslaves people. Most of them beg for it.

When you sleep do you dream in talking points?

No, but I do dream in HD.

"enslave people"....what a joke! Embarrassing and you're too dumb to even know it.
#15 | Posted by danni

A perfect example of a sheep. No matter how criminal, she defends big government like it was one of her children.

No, but I do dream in HD.

Hahahah. Good one.

Danni still thinks you, as someone who is not a liberal, should feel guilt for the 3/5ths rule which you mentioned, and had nothing to do with as you were not even born yet.

Amazing, isn't it?

Danni: You are showing your true leftist uneducated colors. Who was in office during the Civil War? Oh wait a second...It was a REPUBLICAN! Who freed the slaves...wait a second...REPUBLICAN again! Who's that old ass guy in Congress, connected to the KKK...Byrd...wait a second...he's a DEMOCRAT! Hummm peculiar...

LOL Speaking of uneducated.

You do realize the Republican party of today is NOT what it was in the 1860's, don't you?

#20 | Posted by andyuhenet at 2010-03-10 08:00 PM

LOL Speaking of uneducated.

You do realize the Republican party of today is NOT what it was in the 1860's, don't you?

JPW: I think you need to go through an American History class again. While not identical, the Republican Party of then is close enough to now. You are thinking of Classical Liberals (Jefferson Liberals) vs the Federalist (John Adams and his ilk) Eventually the Jefferson Democrats became the conservitive party of today (with changes along the way) and the Federalist became today's Democrats. It wasn't until the industrial revolution that they would become known as Progressives and Liberals (not the true liberal). It would probablly be in your best interest to get yourself a McEducation.

While not identical, the Republican Party of then is close enough to now.

What a joke.

I am curious how white folks in rural area are over-represented. Are you saying census takers count 10 in a household when there are really 8? Or are you saying that being accurately counted is over-representation?

Good question, Goat.

While Congress bickers about whether to make statistical adjustments to the census, whose old-fashioned nose-counting method famously undercounts poor people and minorities, yet another problem with unadjusted enumeration tends to get overlooked: It almost certainly overcounts rich people.

Perhaps you're familiar with the statistic that the 1990 census missed 4 million (disproportionately low-income) people. This is actually a slight oversimplification. The 1990 census missed a net 4 million people, a figure arrived at by combining the 8.4 million people the census failed to count and the 4.4 million the census never should have counted in the first place. According to a study by the General Accounting Office, about 4 million of those 4.4 million overcounted people were "double counts"--people who'd already been counted once in the census and somehow got counted a second time.

Jefferson Democrats became the conservitive party of today

Is this guy trolling or really fucking stupid?

...I guess he could be both?

Blusky, you apparently have no clue of what you are talking about. Why don't you get a lesson in American History and Politics, dumbass. Go listen to your left-wing garbage that blinds you to what reality really is. But I guess it makes perfect sense, you are a liberal, don't care much about history, don't understand politics (how the parties were ultimitly formed). Today's libertarian is very closely aligned to the same philosophies as a Jeffersonian Democrat. Extreme limited Government, more personal freedom and accountability. The only thing the Fed's should Govern is contracts, the rest should be up to the states and local Governments to decide. But I digress, you will probablly come up with some rant about how racist that is or whine about how xyz people are under represented...truth be told a head count is all that is required from the census...look in the constitution. It's deplorable that some states are enticing illegal's to fill out the census to gain more money from the Fed's. But you probabally thing that is a good idea to. Spend more tax payers money on garbage programs...but they are entitled right? Liberal nut job.

A wall of separation for Church and State, high import tariffs, no standing army, friendly relations with all nations, equality for all, common good over personal gain, no national bank, ....yeah sounds just like a modern republican!

Jefferson's first action after being elected President was cut the military budget in half.

He had children with a black woman, smoked massive amounts of cannabis, and wrote a bible that left out all the supernatural powers of Jesus.

Please, continue to post. Your ignorance is hilarious.

I said closely aligned, not exactly to the "T" the same, so do not take me out of context and spin what I said. Second, everyone knows Jefferson had relations with his slaves, what does that have to do with Republican's? (No value added to your argument) Third, how can you make an off base comment that he was a major cannibas smoker? What you and your pothead buddies sit around and think that one up? As far as "Seperation Of Church and State"-It was set up as to not have the Federal Government ESTABLISH a national religion...nothing in the Constitution says "Seperation." It is true that Jefferson was a naturalist more or less, but he was also a Christian. As for a National Bank, you can thank the Federalist for that one.

I said closely aligned, not exactly to the "T" the same

Actually, no. That isn't what you said. Allow me to refresh your memory:
" Eventually the Jefferson Democrats became the conservitive party of today (with changes along the way) and the Federalist became today's Democrats."

Only after being called out on this laughable stupidity did you (attempt to) backtrack:
"Today's libertarian is very closely aligned to the same philosophies as a Jeffersonian Democrat."
This statement is not only equally stupid to the previous, but directly contradicts it.

Your knowledge of Jefferson is so inadequate it would be irresponsible of me to try and teach such a devout, self-described "personal responsibility" advocate through debate. You haven't taken the time to learn yourself, so why should I help? I could go point-by-point on the plethora of ignorance you've provided in two short post... I could offer a fair reading list to narrow down your search --every book about Americana is a book about Jefferson-- it is admittedly to big for one lifetime..... but why? You've made it this far in life, no need to change now. So my only advice is to revert to whatever handle you went by before today (regardless of whatever foolishness forced you to abandon it) because "wormfood" is already fucked.

"Today's libertarian is very closely aligned to the same philosophies as a Jeffersonian Democrat."

Really? Do right-libertarians agree with this?

.. legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.
Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to James Madison), 1785

Null,

I'm a libertarian but not a right libertarian and to some extent I do agree with that. See my comments to Ray about a fully for profit education system.

Also

A wall of separation for Church and State, high import tariffs, no standing army, friendly relations with all nations, equality for all, common good over personal gain, no national bank, ....yeah sounds just like a modern republican!

Nope but it does sound like a modern libertarian. In fact I would agree with every one of those points.

"I'm a libertarian but not a right libertarian and to some extent I do agree with that."

I know. You're one of the more reasonable ones, and certainly not a randroid. That's cool. I'm intrigued by the idea of a Ron Paul presidency. If he wasn't such a kook, I would love to see the special interests howl when he tried to cut the Pentagon budget, military bases overseas and domestically, farm subsidies, etc.