Typical democrat? you decide

[Stevo]

Had a chance this weekend to visit some old friends, and during the process of our visit, got into a heated discussion about politics. Now, before anyone starts in on the name-calling, the person in question is actually intelligent, but is terribly mis-informed, and when asked "where did you get this information?" the answer is from other friends (mostly democrats from what I was told) and from websites on the internet. For the record, this person is 33, and has been a voter since 18.

Our discussion went into presidential candidates, and she was undecided about which democrat she would vote for, but was dead set against McCain, because republicans will get us into another war and because the republicans had reinstated the draft, so she didn't want to see her children being killed in a war. I tried to give her factual information, but was told I was just "being a republican" and the quoted the demo-fact that 2000 of our soldiers were being killed a month since this war was started by Bush. When I mentioned that just over 4000 had been killed in the entire war, was told that I was lying. I had to quickly let this topic go, as it was about to get ugly, and as said, she is an old friend.

We then started discussing about how all republicans have started all the wars, she made mention that it was indeed Jimmy Carter that ended the Vietnam war and brought home our troops. When given the dates of when the war was officially over, and when Carter took office, I was informed my dates were off. When I made mention of the Iran hostage crisis and how it took Reagan coming into office to get them released, again, I was wrong. In this persons eye, Carter was a saint, and the best president. I was informed about how Reagan was the worst president, yata yata. I gave the fuck up at this time, as I would have better luck talking to the pile of crawfish we were eating.

Again, this person is smart, educated through highschool, and has a good job, etc. The issue is, she is grossly mis-informed, and because of the democratic tendency to label ANY information that does not fit what she has been told by her demo friends as "republican bullshit" she will not listen to reason.

33 years old, and votes every chance she gets.


Stevo

[gt350mustang]

Spreading misinformation qualifies someone as an idiot.

[Stevo]

Spreading misinformation qualifies someone as an idiot.

Listening to the misinformation and being brainwashed by it qualifies as what though?

Stevo

[HookEm]

Several regular posters in this forum?

Listening to the misinformation and being brainwashed by it qualifies as what though?

Stevo

[mikeb]

Some people will not allow facts to get in the way of what they want to believe.

[Paladin]

I wish you would have left out the gender so I could have guessed it was a woman. :D

<---- Ducks beofre the girls start bashing. :p

[Paladin]

Listening to the misinformation and being brainwashed by it qualifies as what though?

Stevo

How else do the liberals get people to believe the crap they are spewing? They can't have a radio or TV show that spews their straight line rhetoric and actually get ratings. Their message is not one that resonates with Americans in it's truest form, so they have to have these sheeple or they would have no following at all.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i normally make it a rule to not post anything in this forum, but for some reason today i've decided to break that rule.

most studies calculate approximately 1 million total deaths as a result of the us occupation of iraq (i call it that because some misinformed people still think its a war on terror). don't ask me to post links because anyone can research this with a little time. the pentagon and their media puppets spend a lot of effort trying to conceal the true death count of this war:
1) iraqi civilians are not reported by pentagon/media
2) mercenaries are not reported by pentagon/media - thats right, the majority of the soldiers in iraq are mercenaries, not us troops or british troops, etc...

for you to only mention the 4000+ us soldiers shows that you have a narrow view of the war.

fyi, the total death count includes the following and is not just limited to combat related deaths:
1) deaths due to decreased law as a result of the war
2) deaths due to decreased health care as a result of the war
3) etc...

[JimD]

Sounds like she needs to cease voting for anything and pick up a history book. Idiots like that are gonna vote for clinton.

[bcoop]

That's pretty scary if you ask me. Sounds to me like that chick isn't qualified to vote for American Idol contestants, let alone potential leaders of the country.

[HookEm]

You have a source, right?

i normally make it a rule to not post anything in this forum, but for some reason today i've decided to break that rule.

most studies calculate approximately 1 million total deaths as a result of the us occupation of iraq (i call it that because some misinformed people still think its a war on terror). don't ask me to post links because anyone can research this with a little time. the pentagon and their media puppets spend a lot of effort trying to conceal the true death count of this war:
1) iraqi civilians are not reported by pentagon/media
2) mercenaries are not reported by pentagon/media - thats right, the majority of the soldiers in iraq are mercenaries, not us troops or british troops, etc...

for you to only mention the 4000+ us soldiers shows that you have a narrow view of the war.

fyi, the total death count includes the following and is not just limited to combat related deaths:
1) deaths due to decreased law as a result of the war
2) deaths due to decreased health care as a result of the war
3) etc...

[Rusty Shackleford]

i repeat: "don't ask me to post links because anyone can research this with a little time."

currently, this has got to be one of the easiest subjects to find information on.

[Cooter]

sounds like a typical stupid bitch to me

[Muffrazr]

Sounds like she found information that fits in with her thought processes. No different than anyone else. The truely difficult task would be to figure out how far off any "facts" really are. Each party has there own brand of propaganda, and there is usually some truth to either side. One of the main problems with supplying partial truths are the partial lies that have been placed within the information.

[01WhiteCobra]

You have a source, right?

The only study I can think of off hand (too lazy to search) would be the study done at John Hopkins/MIT back in 06 which put the total at 655,000. This was total deaths and not necessarily deaths attributed to coalition forces.

There was some question about the survey method involved but they used the cluster survey method which is typically used in estimating deaths during conflicts.

[Paladin]

The only study I can think of off hand (too lazy to search) would be the study done at John Hopkins/MIT back in 06 which put the total at 655,000. This was total deaths and not necessarily deaths attributed to coalition forces.

There was some question about the survey method involved but they used the cluster survey method which is typically used in estimating deaths during conflicts.

Were there any similar studies done about how many were killed by Saddam when he was gassing his own people? I also wonder how many of the dead were insurgents and not Iraqi citizens. This is not some easy thing to get definitive answers IMO.

[AL P]

I guess when some Iraqi guy chokes on a ham sandwich that is the fault of "the occupiers" too. Did I say ham? Oh no, we are to blame for them eating ham too.

Give me a fucking break with that shit. Some people in this thread just prove the point of the original post. IE, don't stop and think about things for your self, just read it on that thar innernet thing, they already done thought it out!!!

[Denny]

I didn't know that you and gpamp were old friends :confused:

[AL P]

Were there any similar studies done about how many were killed by Saddam when he was gassing his own people? I also wonder how many of the dead were insurgents and not Iraqi citizens. This is not some easy thing to get definitive answers IMO.

Well shit, the insurgents are civilians for the purposes of this study, don't you know anything about fluffing statistics for political purposes?

[01WhiteCobra]

Were there any similar studies done about how many were killed by Saddam when he was gassing his own people? I also wonder how many of the dead were insurgents and not Iraqi citizens. This is not some easy thing to get definitive answers IMO.

Find the study the number of dead that were citizens vs. insurgents and who killed them were all part of the survey. Also I believe the number directly attributed to coalition forces was about 25%.

The first question is a non-issue. We can assume it was enough that the United States decided to act. If we delve into how many Saddam gassed we can even go deeper and try and decide who supplied Iraq with the expertise and systems development for chemical weapons...

US plans got screwed in 79 with the overthrowing of the pro-US Shah of Iran. Up until then Iran was a key ally in Washington almost to the extent of Israel. We've been trying to clean up the mess ever since. First by backing Iraq until in the Iran-Iraq war things didn't workout as planned.

We shifted strategy when Saddam screwed up and tried to take Kuwait and we've been on another track ever since.

Not saying it's right or wrong just my observation of the situation.

[Stevo]

for you to only mention the 4000+ us soldiers shows that you have a narrow view of the war.


For you to pick this one tidbit from my post shows that you have a narrow mind, period. I didn't say 4000 humans consisting of Iraqi citizens, Iraqi solders, American soldiers, and foreign combatants, it was inferred (and anyone can easily draw that conclusion if you actually read the post and have average or above reading comprehension) that there has only been slightly over 4000 American soldiers killed in this war so far, as compared to roughly 120,000 American soldiers that the person in question was trying to tell me have been sent home in body bags.

I'm sorry that you may be a democrat and my post probably has you butt-hurt, but you need to stick to facts guy.


Stevo

[Stevo]

i repeat: "don't ask me to post links because anyone can research this with a little time."

currently, this has got to be one of the easiest subjects to find information on.

Translated: "I'm pulling information out of my ass, and you can spend time fact-finding to disprove me if you want."

I'll pass.


Stevo

[Rusty Shackleford]

For you to pick this one tidbit from my post shows that you have a narrow mind, period. I didn't say 4000 humans consisting of Iraqi citizens, Iraqi solders, American soldiers, and foreign combatants, it was inferred (and anyone can easily draw that conclusion if you actually read the post and have average or above reading comprehension) that there has only been slightly over 4000 American soldiers killed in this war so far, as compared to roughly 120,000 American soldiers that the person in question was trying to tell me have been sent home in body bags.

I'm sorry that you may be a democrat and my post probably has you butt-hurt, but you need to stick to facts guy.


Stevo

you said "When I mentioned that just over 4000 had been killed in the entire war, was told that I was lying." this infers that just over 4000 people have been killed. most people don't understand how many people have really died as a result of the occupation of iraq. the 4000 reported us trips is just a drop in the bucket.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Translated: "I'm pulling information out of my ass, and you can spend time fact-finding to disprove me if you want."

I'll pass.


Stevo

the information i stated is widely known to anyone who has mildly studied the war.

example: one thing we both agree on is that there are 4000+ dead us soldiers. you didn't put a reference for that because it is widely known to anyone that knows anything about the war.

[Casper]

The only study I can think of off hand (too lazy to search) would be the study done at John Hopkins/MIT back in 06 which put the total at 655,000. This was total deaths and not necessarily deaths attributed to coalition forces.

There was some question about the survey method involved but they used the cluster survey method which is typically used in estimating deaths during conflicts.

I think they really cherry picked the clusters as well. I remember lots of debate about the validity, and some anecdotal comparisons that made it seem even more outrageous.

[AL P]

the information i stated is widely known to anyone who has mildly studied the war.

Sure it is. In this thread alone someone pointed out an MIT study that quoted numbers 40% less than yours.

I like how you pre-qualify your statements with "don't ask me to prove it, but...". You might as well say "Don't ask me to think for myself, I read this on the internet so it must be true..."

[AL P]

I think they really cherry picked the clusters as well. I remember lots of debate about the validity, and some anecdotal comparisons that made it seem even more outrageous.

They would never do that. People don't lie for money or fame.

[5.0_CJ]

hahahahaha..... not suprised at all.

[Vertnut]

A point of reference for "a Republican getting us into another war"...WWI -Woodrow Wilson (Dem)- 117k US deaths, WWII-FDR (Dem)- 400k US deaths, Korean Conflict-Truman (Dem)- 33k US deaths, Viet Nam War- JFK/LBJ joint venture-60k+ US deaths. Nixon, of all people, pulled us out of Viet Nam. Those warmonger Republicans! :cool:

[Denny]

A point of reference for "a Republican getting us into another war"...WWI -Woodrow Wilson (Dem)- 117k US deaths, WWII-FDR (Dem)- 400k US deaths, Korean Conflict-Truman (Dem)- 33k US deaths, Viet Nam War- JFK/LBJ joint venture-60k+ US deaths. Nixon, of all people, pulled us out of Viet Nam. Those warmonger Republicans! :cool:
But do those really count?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Sure it is. In this thread alone someone pointed out an MIT study that quoted numbers 40% less than yours.

I like how you pre-qualify your statements with "don't ask me to prove it, but...". You might as well say "Don't ask me to think for myself, I read this on the internet so it must be true..."

that mit study was performed in 2006 (as stated). it is now 2008. that study agrees with my statements.

[HookEm]

Sources, please

that mit study was performed in 2006 (as stated). it is now 2008. that study agrees with my statements.

[AL P]

that mit study was performed in 2006 (as stated). it is now 2008. that study agrees with my statements.

You honestly think 400,000 more people have died in the last 18 months? Are you fucking high?

[bcoop]

You honestly think 400,000 more people have died in the last 18 months? Are you fucking high?



I've never been THAT high, and I can put it away. :o


He might not be high, but he's a fucking idiot for sure!

[AL P]

I've never been THAT high, and I can put it away. :o


He might not be high, but he's a fucking idiot for sure!

You are right, stupid is way worse than high.

[Denny]

Sources, please
I'll beat him to it...

"It's out there, search for yourself. Until you find it, you'll be wrong. When you do find it, you'll still be wrong."

[Denny]

You are right, stupid is way worse than high.
I don't know... less munchies, for sure.

[AL P]

I'll beat him to it...

"It's out there, search for yourself. Until you find it, you'll be wrong. When you do find it, you'll still be wrong."

Here is some interesting math, if you assume the MIT study was done two years ago and ~345,000 people have died since then it would be 472 people being killed each and every day.

You'd think we would hear about something like that. I could be wrong though. LOL

[Stevo]

you said "When I mentioned that just over 4000 had been killed in the entire war, was told that I was lying." this infers that just over 4000 people have been killed. most people don't understand how many people have really died as a result of the occupation of iraq. the 4000 reported us trips is just a drop in the bucket.

Alright, didn't want to ridicule you but, here, I'll quote myself so you may try to re-read what was posted in the first post:

so she didn't want to see her children being killed in a war. I tried to give her factual information, but was told I was just "being a republican" and the quoted the demo-fact that 2000 of our soldiers were being killed a month since this war was started by Bush. When I mentioned that just over 4000 had been killed in the entire war, was told that I was lying.

See? My original post is clearly inferring that we are discussing AMERICAN SOLDIERS in our discussion. Funny thing is, it appears she is quite smarter than you as she knew we were discussing American troops.

I am sorry you cannot read simple sentences and process the information and draw logical conclusions as most people can, and I can now see why you have the tendency as you mentioned to not post in this forum. Being below average isn't a bad thing, as long as you know you have the problem.

Stevo

[Stevo]

the information i stated is widely known to anyone who has mildly studied the war.

example: one thing we both agree on is that there are 4000+ dead us soldiers. you didn't put a reference for that because it is widely known to anyone that knows anything about the war.

Bullshit. You figures are pulled straight from your ass, if not, you could less time than it took for you to post that response with a single google search and provide a respected source to prove it.

Stevo

[Rusty Shackleford]

Sources, please

Al P brought up the MIT study, not me

[AL P]

Al P brought up the MIT study, not me

Yea, it was me that started talking about it!!

[Rusty Shackleford]

You honestly think 400,000 more people have died in the last 18 months? Are you fucking high?

again, most studies show the number around 1million. its difficult to gain exact numbers. please also realize that when someone says, 1 million it is an approximation.

again, going back to the MIT study you brought up: if ~655,000 died from 2003-2006 then 345,000 dieing from 2006-2008 is approximately same death rate.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Here is some interesting math, if you assume the MIT study was done two years ago and ~345,000 people have died since then it would be 472 people being killed each and every day.

You'd think we would hear about something like that. I could be wrong though. LOL

you don't hear about all the deaths because your source of information is fox 4 news.

[Stevo]

again, most studies show the number around 1million. its difficult to gain exact numbers. please also realize that when someone says, 1 million it is an approximation.

again, going back to the MIT study you brought up: if ~655,000 died from 2003-2006 then 345,000 dieing from 2006-2008 is approximately same death rate.

You are a good representation of why there needs to be an I.Q. test done before anyone is allowed to vote.

Stevo

[Denny]

again, most studies show the number around 1million. its difficult to gain exact numbers. please also realize that when someone says, 1 million it is an approximation.

again, going back to the MIT study you brought up: if ~655,000 died from 2003-2006 then 345,000 dieing from 2006-2008 is approximately same death rate.
You do realize that those figures are wrong anyway. Both numbers.

[AL P]

you don't hear about all the deaths because your source of information is fox 4 news.

Well, I suppose that is better than nowhere.

Which happens to be the source of your information.

[01WhiteCobra]

You do realize that those figures are wrong anyway. Both numbers.

So Denny, you will have to enlighten us with your numbers. For the moment, I'll take John Hopkins/MIT over DFWStangs, FTW... unless you can read the study and tell me where it is flawed.

RS, I would suspect the rate of death in the conflict isn't linear nor has kept pace with the early days when some big ass bombs were dropping every day and night.

The question, for me, is was 600K worth it or not?

[AL P]

again, most studies show the number around 1million. its difficult to gain exact numbers. please also realize that when someone says, 1 million it is an approximation.

again, going back to the MIT study you brought up: if ~655,000 died from 2003-2006 then 345,000 dieing from 2006-2008 is approximately same death rate.

Yes Einstein, that was the point of my post above.

If you think the death rate is the same now as it was during 2003-2006 you must be sniffing glue or something.

[AL P]

So Denny, you will have to enlighten us with your numbers. For the moment, I'll take John Hopkins/MIT over DFWStangs, FTW... unless you can read the study and tell me where it is flawed.

RS, I would suspect the rate of death in the conflict isn't linear nor has kept pace with the early days when some big ass bombs were dropping every day and night.

The question, for me, is was 600K worth it or not?

I'd go with the MIT study too. Even if they are off by a factor of 2 that is still a big number.

Ask me in 20 years if it was "worth it". I'll have my answer then.

[HookEm]

you don't hear about all the deaths because your source of information is fox 4 news.



And your source is?

[01WhiteCobra]

Ask me in 20 years if it was "worth it". I'll have my answer then.

Exactly, this isn't like when my wife and I picked out the tile for the pool.

[Denny]

So Denny, you will have to enlighten us with your numbers. For the moment, I'll take John Hopkins/MIT over DFWStangs, FTW... unless you can read the study and tell me where it is flawed.

RS, I would suspect the rate of death in the conflict isn't linear nor has kept pace with the early days when some big ass bombs were dropping every day and night.

The question, for me, is was 600K worth it or not?
I'm thinking 100K-200K TOTAL. This seems to be more in line with what I think.
http://zfacts.com/p/466.html
Then again, there are TONS of "sources," each giving different numbers.

[01WhiteCobra]

I'm thinking 100K-200K TOTAL. This seems to be more in line with what I think.
http://zfacts.com/p/466.html
Then again, there are TONS of "sources," each giving different numbers.

Oh, come on, Denny. Seriously.

ZFacts vs. John Hopkins/MIT...

Do you know the type of analysis ZFacts has done?

[46Tbird]

ZFacts are good enough for ZDenny.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I'm thinking 100K-200K TOTAL. This seems to be more in line with what I think.
http://zfacts.com/p/466.html
Then again, there are TONS of "sources," each giving different numbers.

zfacts? lol

[HookEm]

zfacts? lol


And again, for the third time, your source is?


And dont say "What he said FTW!"

[Denny]

Oh, come on, Denny. Seriously.

ZFacts vs. John Hopkins/MIT...

Do you know the type of analysis ZFacts has done?
Sorry, bro. I'm not buying the JH/MIT on this one. What's sad is that the figures of both aren't even close. I couldn't possibly see that many dead already. No way.

[bcoop]

You are a good representation of why there needs to be selective breeding, and a very deep cleaning of the collective gene pool.

Stevo



Fixed.

[Denny]

zfacts? lol
At least I showed a "source" instead of your "find it yourself or prove me wrong" bullshit.

At least you're consistant. This is all I expected from you.

[01WhiteCobra]

Sorry, bro. I'm not buying the JH/MIT on this one. What's sad is that the figures of both aren't even close. I couldn't possibly see that many dead already. No way.

Denny, seriously. Do you know what their stats are based on?

I'll go with the cluster analysis done with John Hopkins. I searched and searched zfacts site and couldn't find how they arrived at their figures which leads me to believe news stories.

I know Dubya said the report was highly discredited... but, with respect to the office, I'm saying he is full of shit.

Sample size and confidence interval > Dubya.

[Rusty Shackleford]

And again, for the third time, your source is?


And dont say "What he said FTW!"

1) since you couldn't tell, we're talking about the Johns Hopkins survey. The lancet survey published the results of the Johns Hopkins survey so its really the same data.

2) the orb (a british organization) estimates over 1,000,000 dead as of september 2007.

[Paladin]

Find the study the number of dead that were citizens vs. insurgents and who killed them were all part of the survey. Also I believe the number directly attributed to coalition forces was about 25%.

The first question is a non-issue. We can assume it was enough that the United States decided to act. If we delve into how many Saddam gassed we can even go deeper and try and decide who supplied Iraq with the expertise and systems development for chemical weapons...

US plans got screwed in 79 with the overthrowing of the pro-US Shah of Iran. Up until then Iran was a key ally in Washington almost to the extent of Israel. We've been trying to clean up the mess ever since. First by backing Iraq until in the Iran-Iraq war things didn't workout as planned.

We shifted strategy when Saddam screwed up and tried to take Kuwait and we've been on another track ever since.

Not saying it's right or wrong just my observation of the situation.

So all this mess can be thrown at Carter's feet? :D

[Denny]

Denny, seriously. Do you know what their stats are based on?

I'll go with the cluster analysis done with John Hopkins. I searched and searched zfacts site and couldn't find how they arrived at their figures which leads me to believe news stories.

I know Dubya said the report was highly discredited... but, with respect to the office, I'm saying he is full of shit.

Sample size and confidence interval > Dubya.
I seriously doubt ANY report as being within a grenade's throw of being accurate. This is the amount I've been figuring. This site agrees with ME, not vice-versa. The JH cluster analysis isn't going to hold water in an environment that doesn't report 1/2 of the births and/or deaths on a daily basis.

[Denny]

2) the orb (a british organization) estimates over 1,000,000 dead as of september 2007.
If you're going to quote that anti-war shit, then you can take your "lol" and shove it up your ass.

[Paladin]

Well shit, the insurgents are civilians for the purposes of this study, don't you know anything about fluffing statistics for political purposes?

Unfortunately I do, that is why I am skeptical.

[01WhiteCobra]

I seriously doubt ANY report as being within a grenade's throw of being accurate. This is the amount I've been figuring. This site agrees with ME, not vice-versa. The JH cluster analysis isn't going to hold water in an environment that doesn't report 1/2 of the births and/or deaths on a daily basis.

Fine, you are basing your belief on personal opinion, however wrong.

Gotcha. Have you actually read the report and found out where they got their information from?

[Paladin]

I seriously doubt ANY report as being within a grenade's throw of being accurate. This is the amount I've been figuring. This site agrees with ME, not vice-versa. The JH cluster analysis isn't going to hold water in an environment that doesn't report 1/2 of the births and/or deaths on a daily basis.

So we can add counting number of dead in Iraq to the old "hand grenades and nuclear bombs" close enough joke? LOL

[01WhiteCobra]

Unfortunately I do, that is why I am skeptical.

LMAO.

You get out of FW how ever often?

[Rusty Shackleford]

If you're going to quote that anti-war shit, then you can take your "lol" and shove it up your ass.

what an intelligent post.

fact 1: while the johns hopkins study results are not facts, johns hopkins is widely viewed as a credible source
fact 2: the orb survey agrees with the johns hopkins study
fact 3: you have yet to disprove anything

[01WhiteCobra]

what an intelligent post.

fact 1: while the johns hopkins study results are not facts, johns hopkins is widely viewed as a credible source

Wow. Seriously, why do you believe that?

[Paladin]

LMAO.

You get out of FW how ever often?

Have you been drinking today or are you just upset at life Eric?

I really don't think we need to go down this road again, do we?

[Denny]

what an intelligent post.

fact 1: while the johns hopkins study results are not facts, johns hopkins is widely viewed as a credible source
fact 2: the orb survey agrees with the johns hopkins study
fact 3: you have yet to disprove anything
1. Then you shouldn't agree with it, right? :rolleyes:
2. If they agree, then why are there different figures? :rolleyes:
3. I'll wait for you to PROVE something before I DISPROVE it. :rolleyes:

[Denny]

So we can add counting number of dead in Iraq to the old "hand grenades and nuclear bombs" close enough joke? LOL
LMFAO!!!

[Denny]

Mods, can I request an IP check on 01WC. He's not himself today. :(

[Rusty Shackleford]

Wow. Seriously, why do you believe that?

i don't understand your question. if the johns hopkins study was a fact, we wouldn't be discussing it now.

[01WhiteCobra]

Have you been drinking today or are you just upset at life Eric?

I really don't think we need to go down this road again, do we?

Down what road Notch?

I present you with a study that actually lived on the ground in Iraq and interviewed, looked at death certificates and made a scientific conclusion based on respected methodologies and... you want to refute it from FW?

Don't you have a homocide at a kid's birthday party to investigate?

[Rusty Shackleford]

1. Then you shouldn't agree with it, right? :rolleyes:
2. If they agree, then why are there different figures? :rolleyes:
3. I'll wait for you to PROVE something before I DISPROVE it. :rolleyes:

1) pointless remark
2) they were taken at different dates, this is obvious
3) obviously i don't have the resources to conduct my own study of the war. i read and rely on others studies. i've named two. you named some internet site named zfacts.

[01WhiteCobra]

Mods, can I request an IP check on 01WC. He's not himself today. :(

Denny, all I'm asking you is to refute a scientific study based on respected methodology and you presented me with zfacts.

Again the question isn't whether 600K+ people died because of this conflict. The question is... was it worth it?

You can't answer that. I can't answer that. Z can't answer that. G can't answer that. Notch can't answer that.

Our children will be able to answer that... once they become adults... as Al and I said earlier.

[Paladin]

Down what road Notch?

I present you with a study that actually lived on the ground in Iraq and interviewed, looked at death certificates and made a scientific conclusion based on respected methodologies and... you want to refute it from FW?

Don't you have a homocide at a kid's birthday party to investigate?

Did a gay person kill a child somewhere? :p

I have not read the report, this stuff gives me tired head. I was just poking some fun Eric, relax and enjoy things instead of having to be the big guy on the site all the time.

We have gone all about my life experience and travels, that is the road I was referring to.

[Denny]

1) pointless remark
2) they were taken at different dates, this is obvious
3) obviously i don't have the resources to conduct my own study of the war. i read and rely on others studies. i've named two. you named some internet site named zfacts.
1, 2, & 3. Which is why you're not taken seriously on here.

[01WhiteCobra]

i don't understand your question. if the johns hopkins study was a fact, we wouldn't be discussing it now.

RS, I have spent most of my adult life making money of scientific research. Why would you think this survey wasn't based on fact?

The methodology used in the JH/MIT survey was spot on for what they were trying to research and the confidence level excellent. Any time your figure is below your 95% confidence level you know the figures are solid.

I've read through the entire report multiple times I know they were solid.

[Denny]

Denny, all I'm asking you is to refute a scientific study based on respected methodology and you presented me with zfacts.

Again the question isn't whether 600K+ people died because of this conflict. The question is... was it worth it?

You can't answer that. I can't answer that. Z can't answer that. G can't answer that. Notch can't answer that.

Our children will be able to answer that... once they become adults... as Al and I said earlier.
But I don't believe their "evidence" is correct. I can't get to the question at hand because I don't think the information contained in the question is correct.

[Casper]

I seriously doubt ANY report as being within a grenade's throw of being accurate. This is the amount I've been figuring. This site agrees with ME, not vice-versa. The JH cluster analysis isn't going to hold water in an environment that doesn't report 1/2 of the births and/or deaths on a daily basis.

The problem I remember with the Lancet article is that the data did not extrapolate into believable numbers. For instance, areas that had populations roughly similar to before the war would have had to have lost 50% of their original people and replaced them with refugees.

Another point was that whole enclaves of baghdad should have noticed the deaths of thousands, and the influx of thousands of refugees, while these same neighborhoods clearly remembered how many locals had disappeared under saddam (a much smaller number).

There was also a question of how they actually approached the clusters and determined the number dead. Clustering is not invalid, but if the cluster is nothing but garbage data then you have garbage results. For instance, one household could have 12 people claiming to have lost a brother. If all 12 were sisters, then that is one person, not 12. That is an oversimplification of course.

[01WhiteCobra]

But I don't believe their "evidence" is correct. I can't get to the question at hand because I don't think the information contained in the question is correct.

Denny, again, I ask you, have you read the actual report.

[AL P]

So we can add counting number of dead in Iraq to the old "hand grenades and nuclear bombs" close enough joke? LOL

It reminds me of the old "acres of the rainforest" destroyed everyday back in the 1980s. It was the trendy cause of the time so you had all the numbers saying "500 acres of the rainforest are destroyed every minute". Of course, if you took that rate and did a rough estimate you would realize that the rain forest would be gone in about six months. It turned out to be bullshit, of course.

That is the kind of thing you are dealing with here. No need for the truth when you have "truthiness" and the emotions of people like Rusty Shackleturd to fuel stupidity.

While I'll agree that tons of people have died over there, saying that 550+ people (a number derived from being conservative and using a 5 year war and 1 million casualties) have died each and every day, on average, since the war started is a jack off fantasy for peaceniks.

[Paladin]

Denny, all I'm asking you is to refute a scientific study based on respected methodology and you presented me with zfacts.

Again the question isn't whether 600K+ people died because of this conflict. The question is... was it worth it?

You can't answer that. I can't answer that. Z can't answer that. G can't answer that. Notch can't answer that.

Our children will be able to answer that... once they become adults... as Al and I said earlier.

I think most people agree that there is no way to be sure how many have died because of the conflict. If 60 people show up in a mass grave, did they die because of the conflict or would the same criminals have killed those people anyway?

I was actually poking fun of you for defending the report that was 2 years old and now you seem to agree it is not possible to be sure how many died becuase of the conflict.

Relax dude, you seem to be all over the map on this one.

[Denny]

The problem I remember with the Lancet article is that the data did not extrapolate into believable numbers. For instance, areas that had populations roughly similar to before the war would have had to have lost 50% of their original people and replaced them with refugees.

Another point was that whole enclaves of baghdad should have noticed the deaths of thousands, and the influx of thousands of refugees, while these same neighborhoods clearly remembered how many locals had disappeared under saddam (a much smaller number).

There was also a question of how they actually approached the clusters and determined the number dead. Clustering is not invalid, but if the cluster is nothing but garbage data then you have garbage results. For instance, one household could have 12 people claiming to have lost a brother. If all 12 were sisters, then that is one person, not 12. That is an oversimplification of course.
And statements like this are only the tip of it. :( I honestly think no one will ever know, we can all just guess... yes, even JH.

[Paladin]

It reminds me of the old "acres of the rainforest" destroyed everyday back in the 1980s. It was the trendy cause of the time so you had all the numbers saying "500 acres of the rainforest are destroyed every minute". Of course, if you took that rate and did a rough estimate you would realize that the rain forest would be gone in about six months. It turned out to be bullshit, of course.

That is the kind of thing you are dealing with here. No need for the truth when you have "truthiness" and the emotions of people like Rusty Shackleturd to fuel stupidity.

While I'll agree that tons of people have died over there, saying that 550+ people (a number derived from being conservative and using a 5 year war and 1 million casualties) have died each and every day, on average, since the war started is a jack off fantasy for peaceniks.

I agree, but brace yourself for the attack by Eric. LOL

[Denny]

Denny, again, I ask you, have you read the actual report.
Yes, and I came to the same conclusion as others have, like Steven E. Moore. Have you read his article in the Journal? I too consider WSJ as one of those "credible sources."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108

My favorite line:
"I wouldn't survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using only 47 cluster points. Neither would anyone else."

[01WhiteCobra]

I think most people agree that there is no way to be sure how many have died because of the conflict. If 60 people show up in a mass grave, did they die because of the conflict or would the same criminals have killed those people anyway?

I was actually poking fun of you for defending the report that was 2 years old and now you seem to agree it is not possible to be sure how many died becuase of the conflict.

Relax dude, you seem to be all over the map on this one.

I refered to the report because of most people's belief it didn't approach 100K. Whether in 2008, or 2006, the 100K number is valid (either peope still don't think we approach that mark or people believe we surpassed it.)

Again, do you understand a cluster survey? The methodology behind it? How confident are you in the belief the survey is full of shit? Under what experience do you believe this methodology is full of shit?

I'm not sure where you think I said I don't agree with the survey.

My question to you and Denny was... the number doesn't matter. What matter is was it worth it. One human life, to me, wasn't worth it, if the end result isn't what we wanted. At what point do we decide it was worth it/not worth it? 1 life? 10K lives? 100K lives? 1,000,000 lives?

I believe the survey to be fairly accurate but the number doesn't matter. Have I explained my position enough or should I go on?

[01WhiteCobra]

Yes, and I came to the same conclusion as others have, like Steven E. Moore. Have you read his article in the Journal? I too consider WSJ as one of those "credible sources."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108

My favorite line:
"I wouldn't survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using only 47 cluster points. Neither would anyone else."

Nice google.

Mr. Moore didn't question the methodology. He questioned how JH developed the sample size. A sample size that is nearly 3x as large as any survey done in America.

Next.

Yea, I know my shit about survey methodology.

[Denny]

I refered to the report because of most people's belief it didn't approach 100K. Whether in 2008, or 2006, the 100K number is valid (either peope still don't think we approach that mark or people believe we surpassed it.)

Again, do you understand a cluster survey? The methodology behind it? How confident are you in the belief the survey is full of shit? Under what experience do you believe this methodology is full of shit?

I'm not sure where you think I said I don't agree with the survey.

My question to you and Denny was... the number doesn't matter. What matter is was it worth it. One human life, to me, wasn't worth it, if the end result isn't what we wanted. At what point do we decide it was worth it/not worth it? 1 life? 10K lives? 100K lives? 1,000,000 lives?

I believe the survey to be fairly accurate but the number doesn't matter. Have I explained my position enough or should I go on?
IF our goal wasn't achieved, then ya, one life lost wasn't worth it. I guess that's where we differ, though. I see our goals (when I was there) were met. I also see other goals added as the situation changed, but those goals aren't met YET. When you rephase the question the way you did in this post, then you're able to squeeze something out of me.;)

[Denny]

Nice google.

Mr. Moore didn't question the methodology. He questioned how JH developed the sample size. A sample size that is nearly 3x as large as any survey done in America.

Next.

Yea, I know my shit about survey methodology.
Don't do the stretch thing with me, we're both better than that. You know that an inadequate sampling size might (and most likely) skew the results. Who is to say that others were done with different results and the one published was done by a biased choice?

[01WhiteCobra]

IF our goal wasn't achieved, then ya, one life lost wasn't worth it. I guess that's where we differ, though. I see our goals (when I was there) were met. I also see other goals added as the situation changed, but those goals aren't met YET. When you rephase the question the way you did in this post, then you're able to squeeze something out of me.;)

Which is what I'm getting at. Human life is human life. If one is lost for stupidity (which happens every day in Dallas and Fort Worth) it wasn't worth it.

If 1,000,000 are lost for the "greater good" (whatever that fucking means) it was worth it.

Lots of people lost their lives in WWII... was it worth it? Yea.

We won't know if Iraq was worth it, life I said, until my children are adults.

[Denny]

Which is what I'm getting at. Human life is human life. If one is lost for stupidity (which happens every day in Dallas and Fort Worth) it wasn't worth it.

If 1,000,000 are lost for the "greater good" (whatever that fucking means) it was worth it.

Lots of people lost their lives in WWII... was it worth it? Yea.

We won't know if Iraq was worth it, life I said, until my children are adults.
I honestly think we'll all know before that.

[01WhiteCobra]

Don't do the stretch thing with me, we're both better than that. You know that an inadequate sampling size might (and most likely) skew the results. Who is to say that others were done with different results and the one published was done by a biased choice?

Denny, I'm telling you, in my 10+ years of doing survey crap, the survey was valid.

In fact, the US Congress passed financial and political measures for relief in the Congo using the same analysts that did the JH/MIT survey. All of a sudden, the methodologies seemed valid.

John Zogby, probably the most influencial pollster in the country, concurs with me that the research methodology in the JH/MIT survey was solid.

[AL P]

Nice google.

Mr. Moore didn't question the methodology. He questioned how JH developed the sample size. A sample size that is nearly 3x as large as any survey done in America.

Next.

Yea, I know my shit about survey methodology.

This says a lot to me:

"What happens when you don't use enough cluster points in a survey? You get crazy results when compared to a known quantity, or a survey with more cluster points. There was a perfect example of this two years ago. The UNDP's survey, in April and May 2004, estimated between 18,000 and 29,000 Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war. This survey was conducted four months prior to another, earlier study by the Johns Hopkins team, which used 33 cluster points and estimated between 69,000 and 155,000 civilian deaths--four to five times as high as the UNDP survey, which used 66 times the cluster points."

[HookEm]

You are asking him to disprove something you did not prove......

what an intelligent post.

fact 1: while the johns hopkins study results are not facts, johns hopkins is widely viewed as a credible source
fact 2: the orb survey agrees with the johns hopkins study
fact 3: you have yet to disprove anything

[Rusty Shackleford]

RS, I have spent most of my adult life making money of scientific research. Why would you think this survey wasn't based on fact?

The methodology used in the JH/MIT survey was spot on for what they were trying to research and the confidence level excellent. Any time your figure is below your 95% confidence level you know the figures are solid.

I've read through the entire report multiple times I know they were solid.

i didn't say the study wasn't based on fact, merely that the study's conclusion is not a fact since it is based on statistics/probability. don't get me wrong, i am not disagreeing with the jh study.

[01WhiteCobra]

This says a lot to me:

"What happens when you don't use enough cluster points in a survey? You get crazy results when compared to a known quantity, or a survey with more cluster points. There was a perfect example of this two years ago. The UNDP's survey, in April and May 2004, estimated between 18,000 and 29,000 Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war. This survey was conducted four months prior to another, earlier study by the Johns Hopkins team, which used 33 cluster points and estimated between 69,000 and 155,000 civilian deaths--four to five times as high as the UNDP survey, which used 66 times the cluster points."

Again, Moore is playing the game.

The sample size given by the JH/MIT survey was spot on.

Oh yea, John Moore, who wrote the criticism, is a pollster for the RNC.

Another great quote from Mr. Moore:


I haven't looked at this study much

BTW, John Moore is the "quack" of scientific lit. He writes op eds because none of his research was ever taken seriously and this is his way of "getting back." The "moore" he is quoted the more I laugh.

[Stevo]

Damn it, my thread has gone to shit, get back on topic you asshats! :mad:

Stevo

[AL P]

Again, Moore is playing the game.

The sample size given by the JH/MIT survey was spot on.

Oh yea, John Moore, who wrote the criticism, is a pollster for the RNC.

Another great quote from Mr. Moore:



BTW, John Moore is the "quack" of scientific lit. He writes op eds because none of his research was ever taken seriously and this is his way of "getting back." The "moore" he is quoted the more I laugh.

It appears to me that they took more samples from fewer points, why would you trust that more?

BTW, I got a C in statistics and I really don't give a shit, I'm just asking for your logic.

[01WhiteCobra]

It appears to me that they took more samples from fewer points, why would you trust that more?

BTW, I got a C in statistics and I really don't give a shit, I'm just asking for your logic.

First off, sorry, not sure why I wrote John. Its Steven.

The original survey, that quack decided to try and derail, consisted of a survey of 12,800 people living in 47 clusters. Given those two figures you are looking at approximately a survey of 3,600-3,800 people (correct my math anyone I'm doing this in my head. 3600-3800 without regard to clusters, BTW) Again this is larger than any survey typically done in the US.

We also need to look at Moore's background which is primarily based on making money for the Coalition Provisional Authority and an advisor for Paul Bremer. More disturbing he is a political consultant for Kalifornia. :D

Clusters have two components. People and sampling points. The number of people is the key determinant in cluster analysis (which I've already shown is better than any cluster survey done in the US). The sampling points (clusters) determine the confidence interval.

Hopkin's study had enough clusters to establish a legitimate confidence interval based on the people surveyed and the level of accuracy Hopkins wanted. Again, with a 95% confidence interval number being larger than the number of actually reported means the survey is, most likely, highly accurate.

The 654K was reported with a 95% confidence interval. I have yet to see a legit study that refutes this number other than people saying... "I don't believe it."

The Hopkins study was delayed because of the massive amount of peer review that occurred. The Hopkins team wanted accuracy. If they would have come out with a survey that showed 150K died it still would have been a mind numbing number.

[AL P]

The newspaper clown quotes 1,849 interviews from the 47 sample points. Are you saying more than one person was in each "interview"? or is he full of shit or something? i could be reading it wrong too.

Given that the number of points determines confidence and the JH study offers a 95% confidence, I'm interested as to why all the other studies this guy quoted had fewer samples from a lot more points. Just off the top of my head I would be concerned about getting too much "anecdotal bullshit overlap" by taking too many samples from one area. For example, on one street three people may have all known an acquaintance who got killed and they could all be talking about the same person.

On a different note, how would like to be the guy walking around interviewing? Fuck that!!

[Thats M Life]

The survey recorded 1,474 births and 629 deaths among 12,801 people surveyed. The data were then applied to the 26.1 million Iraqis living in the survey area.

I just dont see how this can be accurate...I'm no expert on scientific studies or polls (in general I think they are full of shit). But to take a survey of only 12k people and to apply it to 26million...how can they expect the ratio to hold true over a broader geographical area...there are certain areas where deaths are more concentrated so I just dont see how it could be even remotely accurate. I'm not saying 645k isnt possible I just see the actual number being plus or minus 200k lol.

Science is great but they are CONSTANTLY wrong on plenty of scientific studies..what makes this one any different? Are we back to salt being good or bad for us...is butter back to being better now or is country crock? Is global warming happening or not? All of our climatologists cant predict a damn accurate hurricane season. Doctors are constantly fucking up desipte all the scientific studies and lab results behind their decisions. Just want to know how can one be so sure of this poll when so many others are constantly biased and wrong. Infact an unbiased poll is probably a myth.

All said...I wouldn't be suprised if the death count was that high but in the end I think were all just pulling numbers out of our ass even MIT so why argue it? And not to sound heartless but it doesnt really matter wether its 400k 600k or 1million..all that matters is the end result and wether or not we wasted our time/money and OUR soldiers.

[Zarathustra]

i normally make it a rule to not post anything in this forum, but for some reason today i've decided to break that rule.

most studies calculate approximately 1 million total deaths as a result of the us occupation of iraq (i call it that because some misinformed people still think its a war on terror). don't ask me to post links because anyone can research this with a little time. the pentagon and their media puppets spend a lot of effort trying to conceal the true death count of this war:
1) iraqi civilians are not reported by pentagon/media
2) mercenaries are not reported by pentagon/media - thats right, the majority of the soldiers in iraq are mercenaries, not us troops or british troops, etc...

for you to only mention the 4000+ us soldiers shows that you have a narrow view of the war.

fyi, the total death count includes the following and is not just limited to combat related deaths:
1) deaths due to decreased law as a result of the war
2) deaths due to decreased health care as a result of the war
3) etc...

Not only that, but that 4k mark is only soldiers that have died IN Iraq. It leaves out those that die of complications from a wound or injury a month later or even a week later.

[black01gt]

That's pretty scary if you ask me. Sounds to me like that chick isn't qualified to vote for American Idol contestants, let alone potential leaders of the country.
From the 5 minutes Ive seen of that show she would be perfectly qualified. It being the top rated show on TeeVee tells us alot about our society don't it? The only reality shows I'll watch are Cops and The Simple Life. :D

[Stevo]

This is nice.

This message is hidden because Zarathustra is on your ignore list.


Stevo

[Zarathustra]

This is nice.




Stevo

I'll bet it is, all you have to do is click show this post. Moreover, nobody cares if you blocked me, you just can't take the heat.

You know you can't resist.

[HookEm]

I'll bet it is, all you have to do is click show this post. Moreover, nobody cares if you blocked me, you just can't take the heat.

You know you can't resist.


http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/4/7/icanhazdeath128520940702812500.jpg

[Mr Majestyk]

Not only that, but that 4k mark is only soldiers that have died IN Iraq. It leaves out those that die of complications from a wound or injury a month later or even a week later.

Speaking of deaths in Iraq, how many casualties resulted from the Iran-Iraq war of 1979 -1988.? How many of those casualties were Iranian boys roped together and sent to their deaths by Ayatollah Kohfuckwad in his truly pathetic directing of human wave attacks?

[HookEm]

Speaking of deaths in Iraq, how many casualties resulted from the Iran-Iraq war of 1979 -1988.? How many of those casualties were Iranian boys roped together and sent to their deaths by Ayatollah Kohfuckwad in his truly pathetic directing of human wave attacks?


Iran lost 500-750K, Iraq 375-500K
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

Go figure...a source!

[01WhiteCobra]

The newspaper clown quotes 1,849 interviews from the 47 sample points. Are you saying more than one person was in each "interview"? or is he full of shit or something? i could be reading it wrong too.

Given that the number of points determines confidence and the JH study offers a 95% confidence, I'm interested as to why all the other studies this guy quoted had fewer samples from a lot more points. Just off the top of my head I would be concerned about getting too much "anecdotal bullshit overlap" by taking too many samples from one area. For example, on one street three people may have all known an acquaintance who got killed and they could all be talking about the same person.

On a different note, how would like to be the guy walking around interviewing? Fuck that!!

Not sure where the reporter got his numbers from but I'm just relaying what I know about cluster analysis.

Can the numbers from one cluster be skewed because a MOAB was dropped on top of it? Sure. Just as much probability of a cluster that didn't have casualties. The results won't vary in a scientific way. More important is the confidence interval of the prediction. To combat that the number of respondents in a cluster is increased over a simple random selection.

Death certificates were produced for over 90% of those respondents which verified the deaths.

As far as "who would do this shit" I believe someone associated with Iraq, internally, did the interviews.

I continue to hear the "50,000" figure which seems to be norm for governmental agencies. Unfortunately, they never provide a basis for such numbers. Sort of like zfacts.



I just dont see how this can be accurate...I'm no expert on scientific studies or polls (in general I think they are full of shit). But to take a survey of only 12k people and to apply it to 26million...

I can tell you after over a decade of doing this shit you don't need much of a sample to gain terrific insight into anything.

There is a reason why political candidates and just about every corporation of any size (that can afford it) rely on surveys and polls.

While your household or street may see things differently we are talking a sample over a very large area.

[01WhiteCobra]

Speaking of deaths in Iraq, how many casualties resulted from the Iran-Iraq war of 1979 -1988.? How many of those casualties were Iranian boys roped together and sent to their deaths by Ayatollah Kohfuckwad in his truly pathetic directing of human wave attacks?

Was a great war for the US, hell we helped Iraq then. Just didn't workout like we thought it would. Plan B was put into effect.

[01WhiteCobra]

The problem I remember with the Lancet article is that the data did not extrapolate into believable numbers. For instance, areas that had populations roughly similar to before the war would have had to have lost 50% of their original people and replaced them with refugees.

Another point was that whole enclaves of baghdad should have noticed the deaths of thousands, and the influx of thousands of refugees, while these same neighborhoods clearly remembered how many locals had disappeared under saddam (a much smaller number).

There was also a question of how they actually approached the clusters and determined the number dead. Clustering is not invalid, but if the cluster is nothing but garbage data then you have garbage results. For instance, one household could have 12 people claiming to have lost a brother. If all 12 were sisters, then that is one person, not 12. That is an oversimplification of course.

Gimme a break Casper. Seriously.

Actually read the study and let me know your conclusions instead of googling the rebuttals.

Let me know the inaccuracies based on survey methodology and not some shit that you read in an article.

[Casper]

Gimme a break Casper. Seriously.

Actually read the study and let me know your conclusions instead of googling the rebuttals.

Let me know the inaccuracies based on survey methodology and not some shit that you read in an article.

Actually that was what I gathered from lurking in discussions with some very competent statisticians, because I am not a statistician, I just know how to convert a SAS script into COBOL and verify the accuracy of the math. I do not know enough about the subject to qualify the rebuttals or to dismiss them. These are what seemed to be the sticking points. There wasn't overall dismissal of the report, merely questions about the ability to achieve that level of accuracy with confidence.

I'm all ears if you want to address the points. Point one I think is an anomaly of statistical mean; there will be oversampling and undersampling that do not readily represent each subset accurately. As far as the actual numbers reached by anyone, I think it is a red herring. I'm not concerned about mission and goals, nor am I concerned about Iraqis standing underneath MOABs. I see the whole operation as a smashing success in military evolution, with the added benefit of producing a veteran force experienced in urban scenarios. But that too is irrelavent.

[01WhiteCobra]

Actually that was what I gathered from lurking in discussions with some very competent statisticians, because I am not a statistician, I just know how to convert a SAS script into COBOL and verify the accuracy of the math. I do not know enough about the subject to qualify the rebuttals or to dismiss them. These are what seemed to be the sticking points. There wasn't overall dismissal of the report, merely questions about the ability to achieve that level of accuracy with confidence.

I'm all ears if you want to address the points. Point one I think is an anomaly of statistical mean; there will be oversampling and undersampling that do not readily represent each subset accurately. As far as the actual numbers reached by anyone, I think it is a red herring. I'm not concerned about mission and goals, nor am I concerned about Iraqis standing underneath MOABs. I see the whole operation as a smashing success in military evolution, with the added benefit of producing a veteran force experienced in urban scenarios. But that too is irrelavent.

30 clusters is typical in epidemiological studies. JH's used 47. The 95.5% confidence level was set at something like 450,000 with a range between 400K and 900K (I believe).

The reason you select 47 clusters is to lower statistical anomaly. In this particular study 50 neighborhoods were originally selected and they visited 47 neighborhoods. A house was picked completely at random and it was interviewed along with the next 39 closet homes.

Again I find it highly ironic Bush calls the study trash when our government found the results from the Congo (when politically correct) to be accurate. Same primary researcher... same methodology.

[Paladin]

I refered to the report because of most people's belief it didn't approach 100K. Whether in 2008, or 2006, the 100K number is valid (either peope still don't think we approach that mark or people believe we surpassed it.)

Again, do you understand a cluster survey? The methodology behind it? How confident are you in the belief the survey is full of shit? Under what experience do you believe this methodology is full of shit?

I'm not sure where you think I said I don't agree with the survey.

My question to you and Denny was... the number doesn't matter. What matter is was it worth it. One human life, to me, wasn't worth it, if the end result isn't what we wanted. At what point do we decide it was worth it/not worth it? 1 life? 10K lives? 100K lives? 1,000,000 lives?

I believe the survey to be fairly accurate but the number doesn't matter. Have I explained my position enough or should I go on?

I think it was worth it. We have not had an attack on our soil since we invaded Afhanistan and Iraq. I hate that human life has been lost, but it started when they came over here and killed about 3K Americans. If they come over and kill a few thousand more, I bet this "Was it worth it" talk will completely disappear, and rightfully so IMO.

[01WhiteCobra]

I think it was worth it. We have not had an attack on our soil since we invaded Afhanistan and Iraq. I hate that human life has been lost, but it started when they came over here and killed about 3K Americans. If they come over and kill a few thousand more, I bet this "Was it worth it" talk will completely disappear, and rightfully so IMO.

Well see. Like I said I don't think any of us can state it was worth at the moment.

As far as another attack on American soil... there was a 8 1/2 year lag between the first WTC bombing and the second.

We'll be coming up on that time frame shortly.

[5.0_CJ]

Well see. Like I said I don't think any of us can state it was worth at the moment.

As far as another attack on American soil... there was a 8 1/2 year lag between the first WTC bombing and the second.

We'll be coming up on that time frame shortly.

you mean another government conspiracy. :rolleyes:

[01WhiteCobra]

you mean another government conspiracy. :rolleyes:

No, I mean another terrorist attack in America.

[HookEm]

No, I mean another terrorist attack in America.



I dont know. I think quite a few more are being attempted, and thwarted, in these the 00s.

That 8.5 yr tiemframe may not be applicable.

[01WhiteCobra]

I dont know. I think quite a few more are being attempted, and thwarted, in these the 00s.

That 8.5 yr tiemframe may not be applicable.

Maybe, maybe not. A decade is just a piss in the bucket for world history.

[5.0_CJ]

No, I mean another terrorist attack in America.

yeah I was being facetious.

[Pro Trash]

Had a chance this weekend to visit some old friends, and during the process of our visit, got into a heated discussion about politics. Now, before anyone starts in on the name-calling, the person in question is actually intelligent, but is terribly mis-informed, and when asked "where did you get this information?" the answer is from other friends (mostly democrats from what I was told) and from websites on the internet. For the record, this person is 33, and has been a voter since 18.

Our discussion went into presidential candidates, and she was undecided about which democrat she would vote for, but was dead set against McCain, because republicans will get us into another war and because the republicans had reinstated the draft, so she didn't want to see her children being killed in a war. I tried to give her factual information, but was told I was just "being a republican" and the quoted the demo-fact that 2000 of our soldiers were being killed a month since this war was started by Bush. When I mentioned that just over 4000 had been killed in the entire war, was told that I was lying. I had to quickly let this topic go, as it was about to get ugly, and as said, she is an old friend.

We then started discussing about how all republicans have started all the wars, she made mention that it was indeed Jimmy Carter that ended the Vietnam war and brought home our troops. When given the dates of when the war was officially over, and when Carter took office, I was informed my dates were off. When I made mention of the Iran hostage crisis and how it took Reagan coming into office to get them released, again, I was wrong. In this persons eye, Carter was a saint, and the best president. I was informed about how Reagan was the worst president, yata yata. I gave the fuck up at this time, as I would have better luck talking to the pile of crawfish we were eating.

Again, this person is smart, educated through highschool, and has a good job, etc. The issue is, she is grossly mis-informed, and because of the democratic tendency to label ANY information that does not fit what she has been told by her demo friends as "republican bullshit" she will not listen to reason.

33 years old, and votes every chance she gets.


Stevo

That has nothing to do with being a democrat, that is a personal issue. She would probably argue any point she thinks she knows about into the ground quoting bs facts.

[Casper]

30 clusters is typical in epidemiological studies. JH's used 47. The 95.5% confidence level was set at something like 450,000 with a range between 400K and 900K (I believe).

The reason you select 47 clusters is to lower statistical anomaly. In this particular study 50 neighborhoods were originally selected and they visited 47 neighborhoods. A house was picked completely at random and it was interviewed along with the next 39 closet homes.

Again I find it highly ironic Bush calls the study trash when our government found the results from the Congo (when politically correct) to be accurate. Same primary researcher... same methodology.

And I have no problem with that. I don't think I ever mentioned any question about the statistical method; the problem was how they gathered data from those households. Which could be about as valid as you can get considering the circumstances, I don't know. Were the clusters analogous to the total population? They certainly did not represent certain kurdish controlled areas, but maybe they were neutral when considering some of the baathist hotspots (at the time). After all, not every square mile of Iraq underwent the same amount of trauma. Were these clusters pigeonholed into high-trauma areas and then extrapolated for the total population? That was another question I felt never was seriously addressed.

There are the anecdotal tests too. Kind of a common sense application of a null hypothesis. What followup was done on any null clusters to determine the heterogenaity of the clusters themselves? You can't use a sample as a control group too, you know that.

[01WhiteCobra]

And I have no problem with that. I don't think I ever mentioned any question about the statistical method; the problem was how they gathered data from those households. Which could be about as valid as you can get considering the circumstances, I don't know. Were the clusters analogous to the total population? They certainly did not represent certain kurdish controlled areas, but maybe they were neutral when considering some of the baathist hotspots (at the time). After all, not every square mile of Iraq underwent the same amount of trauma. Were these clusters pigeonholed into high-trauma areas and then extrapolated for the total population? That was another question I felt never was seriously addressed.

There are the anecdotal tests too. Kind of a common sense application of a null hypothesis. What followup was done on any null clusters to determine the heterogenaity of the clusters themselves? You can't use a sample as a control group too, you know that.

I'm curious, Casper, have you read the actual published report?

Many of your questions are answered. I'm certainly not going to be the gopher boy for you. Read the report. You tell me which part of the report you have a problem with and we'll go from there. I'm done answering regurtitated ideas of others.

[Casper]

I'm curious, Casper, have you read the actual published report?

Many of your questions are answered. I'm certainly not going to be the gopher boy for you. Read the report. You tell me which part of the report you have a problem with and we'll go from there. I'm done answering regurtitated ideas of others.

Fair enough. I wasn't implying that you should.

[Casper]

Do you have a link to the actual study? Johns Hopkins links to the lancet only (that I find) and the lancet requires registration or else I remember my password :(

[Casper]

Incidentally, the 100k-150k figure was from Ali al-Shemari, former Health Minister , who estimated 100 bodies per day brought to morgues. I find it very anecdotal.

The current health minister Salih Mahdi Motlab Al-Hasanawi, estimated 151k. This is getting somewhere, the results are in the New England Journal of Medicine, but good luck navigating it. I believe that has a 95% claimed uncertainty from what I see.

Differences may include causation filtering. Or who knows what.

What does it prove? People died. What does it not prove? That no one would have died.

Help finding PDFs are very welcome.

[Paladin]

Well see. Like I said I don't think any of us can state it was worth at the moment.

As far as another attack on American soil... there was a 8 1/2 year lag between the first WTC bombing and the second.

We'll be coming up on that time frame shortly.

Ok, but there were embassy bombings, the USS Cole, and others that were not on our soil, but were part of an ongoing strategy by Al Quaeda that has ended in large part.

BTW, you asked me if I thought it was worth it, so I answered. We don't have to agree on the answer.

[Paladin]

That has nothing to do with being a democrat, that is a personal issue. She would probably argue any point she thinks she knows about into the ground quoting bs facts.

It sure is curious how many people who are ill informed go the way of liberalism. It seems to attract those who are not informed.

<--- tries to resist obvious slam. :D

[Casper]

Ok, but there were embassy bombings, the USS Cole, and others that were not on our soil, but were part of an ongoing strategy by Al Quaeda that has ended in large part.

BTW, you asked me if I thought it was worth it, so I answered. We don't have to agree on the answer.

You classify the USS cole as a terrorist attack and not a military operation? Why is that? Serious question.

[01WhiteCobra]

Ok, but there were embassy bombings, the USS Cole, and others that were not on our soil, but were part of an ongoing strategy by Al Quaeda that has ended in large part.


So I guess you'll forget about:

US Embassy in Athens in 07, the suicide that took out the Radison, Grand Hyatt, Days Inn in Jordan (all America companies) in 05, the kidnapping of Paul Johnson in Riyadh in 04, terrorists storming the US Embassy in Jeddah in 04, the suicide bomber that took at the housing complex for westerners in Riyadh in 03, the bomb at the US Embassy in Pakistan in 02...

gotcha.

[Casper]

So I guess you'll forget about:

US Embassy in Athens in 07, the suicide that took out the Radison, Grand Hyatt, Days Inn in Jordan (all America companies) in 05, the kidnapping of Paul Johnson in Riyadh in 04, terrorists storming the US Embassy in Jeddah in 04, the suicide bomber that took at the housing complex for westerners in Riyadh in 03, the bomb at the US Embassy in Pakistan in 02...

gotcha.

I think " and others that were not on our soil" kind of covers that. Unless your point is that this is a pattern that extends far prior to 2001 and continues.

I remember my first terrorist bombing in 1974. Yes, I was there. 3 minutes or less and I would have been in it.

[Zarathustra]

It sure is curious how many people who are ill informed go the way of liberalism. It seems to attract those who are not informed.

<--- tries to resist obvious slam. :D

Yea, that's exactly why those that are actually educated turn towards liberalism. Your lines of reasoning would make anyone of sense laugh in your face.

[Zarathustra]

You classify the USS cole as a terrorist attack and not a military operation? Why is that? Serious question.

You've got to wait for him to finish reading his wikipedia page...


waiting......


Oh yea, that's right. He's got absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

My guess is he will utterly ignore you or build you a nice straw man to circumvent your question.

[Stevo]

It sure is curious how many people who are ill informed go the way of liberalism. It seems to attract those who are not informed.

<--- tries to resist obvious slam. :D

This was kinda my point. Now I am the first to admit I am no barometer of the political cross section of America, but most of the people that I have met that are moderate to right wing in a political stance are willing to listen to facts and have a normal discussion, while the moderate to left group rather not to care discuss actual facts and will thumb their nose to factual information that is counter to their said causes.

Stevo

[Mr Majestyk]

Yea, that's exactly why those that are actually educated turn towards liberalism. Your lines of reasoning would make anyone of sense laugh in your face.

You appear to be someone with no sense, so may we therefore presume you are not laughing in his face?

[grape]

going back to the first post.........the woman is 33, how the hell does she remember what carter did first hand?.........just curious. I'm 30 and barely remember reagan, let alone what he did, i was kinda caught up doing other stuff at the time, like kickball and such.

[Mr Majestyk]

If a Democrat must reach back to Carter for an example of a great President so be it. Just goes to show another good example of the type of morons who make up that party today.

[Paladin]

You classify the USS cole as a terrorist attack and not a military operation? Why is that? Serious question.

I remember the story saying the people involved were not wearing uniforms, and Al Quaeda claimed responsibility. Is that not correct?

[grape]

If a Democrat must reach back to Carter for an example of a great President so be it. Just goes to show another good example of the type of morons who make up that party today.


i don't make up the democratic party, but i am a moron that votes for them. :)

[Paladin]

So I guess you'll forget about:

US Embassy in Athens in 07, the suicide that took out the Radison, Grand Hyatt, Days Inn in Jordan (all America companies) in 05, the kidnapping of Paul Johnson in Riyadh in 04, terrorists storming the US Embassy in Jeddah in 04, the suicide bomber that took at the housing complex for westerners in Riyadh in 03, the bomb at the US Embassy in Pakistan in 02...

gotcha.

So you think the attacks committed from 1993 to 9/11 are the same as the attacks since we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't.

I see the attacks committed in 1993 and until 9/11 as having gone almost completely unanswered and the "attacks" you cited as being poorly done and without the stigma of being on our soil or without response. That is my opinion, if you don't agree, tough dude.

[Paladin]

This was kinda my point. Now I am the first to admit I am no barometer of the political cross section of America, but most of the people that I have met that are moderate to right wing in a political stance are willing to listen to facts and have a normal discussion, while the moderate to left group rather not to care discuss actual facts and will thumb their nose to factual information that is counter to their said causes.

Stevo

Your experience has been mine also. I have family who are so liberal they didn't realize they were personally against abortion and they were voting for candidates who were for unfettered abortion, like Obama. They actually said they had not thought about their votes in those terms.

They haven't really changed their minds about voting for liberals, but they have admitted that there are cases where they are being hypocritical for advocating one thing personally and voting for a person who completely disagrees with them. I see this as the typical liberal logic, they vote for ideas that they don't even personally support, yet want it shoved down my throat by their poor choice of candidate. My brother can say he thinks government has gotten too big, yet say he likes liberal ideas of health care run by the government, more governemnt control of our money by raising taxes to help the poor, and income redistribution. I always ask him to give more money if he wants to the government, but stop trying to tell me I have to give more for his ideas that I don't support.

They will often say: "Obama is going to give us change". I ask them what change, and they stutter and mumble but never know anything definitive about the "change" they are voting for. LOL

[AL P]

The fact of the matter is that since the Iraq invasion it has been easier for people who want to be terrorists to simply go to Iraq to try to kill Americans. Why set up an elaborate operation that involves smuggling, logistics and intelligence when you can simply sneak into Iraq via Syria and pick up a rifle and do your business? Let's face it, most of these people are uneducated, brainwashed and lazy, they'll follow the path of least resistance.

I mean really, it was one of the ideas behind the invasion in the first place, to get these assholes to come on in and take on the U.S. Army instead of planning some attack somewhere else. Given the casualty rates on both sides it has turned out well. Even though you can't seperate the deaths of Iraqi nationalists or sectarian militias, I'd still say it has been a tremendous success in total number of these assholes killed and diversion of their resources.

[HookEm]

Spot on, again, z!


You've got to wait for him to finish reading his wikipedia page...


waiting......


Oh yea, that's right. He's got absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

My guess is he will utterly ignore you or build you a nice straw man to circumvent your question.

[Paladin]

Yea, that's exactly why those that are actually educated turn towards liberalism. Your lines of reasoning would make anyone of sense laugh in your face.

You are so right Z!

[Paladin]

The fact of the matter is that since the Iraq invasion it has been easier for people who want to be terrorists to simply go to Iraq to try to kill Americans. Why set up an elaborate operation that involves smuggling, logistics and intelligence when you can simply sneak into Iraq via Syria and pick up a rifle and do your business? Let's face it, most of these people are uneducated, brainwashed and lazy, they'll follow the path of least resistance.

I mean really, it was one of the ideas behind the invasion in the first place, to get these assholes to come on in and take on the U.S. Army instead of planning some attack somewhere else. Given the casualty rates on both sides it has turned out well. Even though you can't seperate the deaths of Iraqi nationalists or sectarian militias, I'd still say it has been a tremendous success in total number of these assholes killed and diversion of their resources.

I agree completely.

[HookEm]

It sure is curious how many people who are ill informed go the way of liberalism. It seems to attract those who are not informed.

<--- tries to resist obvious slam. :D
Any man who is under 30 and is not a Liberal has no heart; and
any man who is over 30 and not a Conservative has no brains.
- Winston Churchill (1874-1965)


Not to be a Republican at 20 is proof of want of heart;
to be one at 30 is proof of want of head.
- François Guisot (1787-1874)

A man who is not a liberal at 16 has no heart;
a man who is not a conservative at 60 has no head.
- Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881)

[01WhiteCobra]

So you think the attacks committed from 1993 to 9/11 are the same as the attacks since we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't.

I see the attacks committed in 1993 and until 9/11 as having gone almost completely unanswered and the "attacks" you cited as being poorly done and without the stigma of being on our soil or without response. That is my opinion, if you don't agree, tough dude.

Of course you don't, Notch... it wouldn't fit your illogical argument.

But you go, boy. You are doing great. You are spot on. Right as always!

[Mr Majestyk]

i don't make up the democratic party, but i am a moron that votes for them. :)

True, I was referring to the party faithful. I voted for Clinton when he ran the first time, but have not voted for a Democratic candidate since. If the Democratic Party can ever field a candidate I find to be worth a chit, I'll consider voting for them.

[Paladin]

If a Democrat must reach back to Carter for an example of a great President so be it. Just goes to show another good example of the type of morons who make up that party today.

I think Eric (01WC) mentioned 1979 as being a starting point for the current mess of islamic extremists wanting to kill us just for being Americans. I think Carter was the President back then, so he gets the blame. :D

[Paladin]

Of course you don't, Notch... it wouldn't fit your illogical argument.

But you go, boy. You are doing great. You are spot on. Right as always!

LOL, once again, if Eric disagrees, it must be wrong!

BTW, you didn't mention if you have been drinking more recently or if something is going poorly in your world. Your posts sure have been kind of odd here lately.

[01WhiteCobra]

LOL, once again, if Eric disagrees, it must be wrong!

BTW, you didn't mention if you have been drinking more recently or if something is going poorly in your world. Your posts sure have been kind of odd here lately.

I said you were right, Notch.

Posts odd? Because I correct fallacy on the thread? Shoot me.

World is great. Pretty sure I'll clear about 5x your salary this year, girls doing wonderful... life is great.

[Paladin]

I said you were right, Notch.

Posts odd? Because I correct fallacy on the thread? Shoot me.

World is great. Pretty sure I'll clear about 5x your salary this year, girls doing wonderful... life is great.

You correct nothing, not even your attempts to make yourself feel adequate on a freaking Mustang internet board.

LOL, you are such an arrogant ass! The board wouldn't be the same without you though.

[01WhiteCobra]

You correct nothing, not even your attempts to make yourself feel adequate on a freaking Mustang internet board.

LOL, you are such an arrogant ass! The board wouldn't be the same without you though.

LMAO.

Notchie, you were the one getting personal, not me. I'm sorry you don't understand the math behind statistics, but that's ok.

The arrogant ass in thread has been you. You interject opinion as if it is factually based, which it isn't, resort to personal attacks when you can't debate...

I'm not the one losing it Notch.

[AL P]

You two guys should just get together and fuck it out.

[01WhiteCobra]

You two guys should just get together and fuck it out.

Not sure why he's getting all personal. He stated his opinion, I stated mine.

I stated facts, he responded with opinion trying to make it appear as fact, then he gets personal.

Sounds like it's notchie's time of the month.

[Zarathustra]

LMAO.

Notchie, you were the one getting personal, not me. I'm sorry you don't understand the math behind statistics, but that's ok.

The arrogant ass in thread has been you. You interject opinion as if it is factually based, which it isn't, resort to personal attacks when you can't debate...

I'm not the one losing it Notch.

Sounds like I'm not the only one that thinks that.

[HookEm]

Sounds like I'm not the only one that thinks that.


<A href="http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lmlmusic.com/images/g_gen_spoton_artwork.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.lmlmusic.com/lml_concerts.php&h=520&w=520&sz=65&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=ZFy393W-49lEzM:&tbnh=131&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522spot%2Bon%2522%26um%3D1%26hl%3De n%26sa%3DN" target=_blank>http://www.lmlmusic.com/images/g_gen_spoton_artwork.jpg (http://www.spot-onentertainment.com/)

[Zarathustra]

You're really bad at what you do

[Mr Majestyk]

You're really good at what you do, or at least that's what your BF says.......

[Paladin]

LMAO.

Notchie, you were the one getting personal, not me. I'm sorry you don't understand the math behind statistics, but that's ok.

The arrogant ass in thread has been you. You interject opinion as if it is factually based, which it isn't, resort to personal attacks when you can't debate...

I'm not the one losing it Notch.

OK, I keep forgetting that if Eric says it's so, it must be. LOL

[Paladin]

Not sure why he's getting all personal. He stated his opinion, I stated mine.

I stated facts, he responded with opinion trying to make it appear as fact, then he gets personal.

Sounds like it's notchie's time of the month.

Your opinion is fact and mine is opinion huh? Nope, you are not an arrogant ass! No, not at all! :rolleyes:

[HookEm]

You're really bad at what you do


Right as usual!

[Paladin]

You two guys should just get together and fuck it out.

As old as he is he would probably blow his pumper if he tried to fuck me. :p

I sure hope I don't make the Tickets "Gay or not Gay" segment with this. LOL

[Paladin]

Sounds like I'm not the only one that thinks that.

You are so right Z!

[01WhiteCobra]

Your opinion is fact and mine is opinion huh? Nope, you are not an arrogant ass! No, not at all! :rolleyes:

Absolutely not. My opinion is my opinion. But when I present facts it isn't my opinion.

Unlike you in this thread that say things like, well I just don't believe it. Which is stating a opinion not ground in fact.

Carrying it further once you know you are at a loss based on your ignorance you resort to personal attacks. A sign of frustration and failure.

But you go boy, you are right!

[Paladin]

Absolutely not. My opinion is my opinion. But when I present facts it isn't my opinion.

Unlike you in this thread that say things like, well I just don't believe it. Which is stating a opinion not ground in fact.

Carrying it further once you know you are at a loss based on your ignorance you resort to personal attacks. A sign of frustration and failure.

But you go boy, you are right!

LOL, okay Eric.

[01WhiteCobra]

LOL, okay Eric.

Like I said, Notch, you are right.

This thread is proof.

[Paladin]

Like I said, Notch, you are right.

This thread is proof.

No, you are right man! The problem is, that is just my opinion and not fact. Too bad my opinion sucks in your world, huh? :p

[black01gt]

I think it was worth it. If they come over and kill a few thousand more, I bet this "Was it worth it" talk will completely disappear, and rightfully so IMO.
That would only make sense to you. If they come back and kill thousands more Americans then 4000 young Americans dead and trillions spent were for naught because we didn't fight terrorism. We stirred up a bunch of shit in Iraq and then had to deal with it instead of fighting terrorism...and still don't know how get out of it, while real terrorist are watching...and waiting. Throwing more money and soldiers at it isn't getting any conclusion. We're spectating the the Sunni's and Shiite's having their endless disgruntlement at $12 Billion of borrowed money a month. Why?

I see Bush sacrificing our country as an insurance policy against terrorism, but I notice he doesn't mention odds. If it happens, I hold him (them) directly responsible. "Was it worth it?" Is flushing a bunch of cash down the shitter when you really need it "worth it?"

(Notch talking about a current subject like Clinton :rolleyes: in 4..3..2.. )

[01WhiteCobra]

No, you are right man! The problem is, that is just my opinion and not fact. Too bad my opinion sucks in your world, huh? :p

Your opinion doesn't suck in my world because you are meaningless in my world.

Again it doesn't take but a quick read through this thread for your to display your ignorance on a subject, interject your opinion and then go on a personal attack.

But and I'm paraphrasing here... what was it you wrote to me one time?

You may have more education, more worldly experiences, a higher IQ but you will never be smarter than me.

Something like that?

[slow99]

Every now and then I just like to type: heteroskedasticity, autocorrelation, and multicollinearity.

[01WhiteCobra]

Every now and then I just like to type: heteroskedasticity, autocorrelation, and multicollinearity.

heteroskedasticity normally applies to econometric studies and not epidemiological studies so I can see why you like to type it every now and then. :D

[slow99]

heteroskedasticity normally applies to econometric studies and not epidemiological studies so I can see why you like to type it every now and then. :D

I actually wish to God that Econometrics in 1999 would have been the last time I ever ran across any of those terms. But alas... :(

[Vertnut]

Stick a fork in this thread... ;)

[01WhiteCobra]

I actually wish to God that Econometrics in 1999 would have been the last time I ever ran across any of those terms. But alas... :(

Oh baby... you are about to get 2 years of some serious heteroskedasticity.

[Denny]

Oh baby... you are about to get 2 years of some serious heteroskedasticity.
Gross!!!

[01WhiteCobra]

Gross!!!

Could be worse, he could be dealing with homoskedasticity. (actually, homo- and hetero- deal with the exact same thing in this context.)

[slow99]

Oh baby... you are about to get 2 years of some serious heteroskedasticity.

I got hit with it pretty bad about 3 weeks ago. Level 2 CFA is only 8 weeks away.
Off to the library for study session #2 for the day...ugggghhh.

[01WhiteCobra]

I got hit with it pretty bad about 3 weeks ago. Level 2 CFA is only 8 weeks away.
Off to the library for study session #2 for the day...ugggghhh.

Good luck, dude. CFA is a bitch but I'm sure well worth it.

[NeedleSharp]

you said "When I mentioned that just over 4000 had been killed in the entire war, was told that I was lying." this infers that just over 4000 people have been killed...
did you used to work for the media at all? you would be great at pulling sound bites! by simply disregarding the sentence before, you actually make sense. good thing i can go straight to the source in this one!

lets use the whole phrase instead of a random sentence and see how the meaning changes k?
2000 of our soldiers were being killed a month since this war was started by Bush. When I mentioned that just over 4000 had been killed in the entire war, was told that I was lying

you see, by adding the first sentence BACK into the quote, we can see he meant, implied/STATED that they were "our soldiers"

pretty cool shit... i think...

[01WhiteCobra]

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b33/TrespassersW/CatThread.jpg

[Muffrazr]

Classic! Good one.

[HookEm]

http://www.delib.co.uk/dblog/categories/images/blog/lolcat.jpg

[01WhiteCobra]

http://www.musicbanter.com/attachments/lounge/2550d1190624227-cat-thread-aka-caturday-cats-042.jpg

[HookEm]

http://www.frn.net/qsl/radio%20airplane%20no%20cat%20farts.jpg

[01WhiteCobra]

http://tantraman.net/smilies_files/Farting-Cat.jpg

[HookEm]

http://bp2.blogger.com/_VKtO7ooEsDY/RrAlHUnfWRI/AAAAAAAAAEs/sFNd9d7W8bU/s1600/funny-sign-fire-hazard-dont-fart-flatulence-comedy-pic.jpg

[Paladin]

Your opinion doesn't suck in my world because you are meaningless in my world.?

All evidence to the contrary. I throw out a few jokes and you get all pissy. You say it isn't because of the drinking and all is good at the house, so what else could it be. Lighten up man, seriously.

Again it doesn't take but a quick read through this thread for your to display your ignorance on a subject, interject your opinion and then go on a personal attack.?

LOL, I could ask you a few questions about the whole survey you posted and point out the humor of you taking several positions, like it being the end all of counts of the dead in Iraq and then admitting that there is no really good way to count them, but I won't go there. :p


But and I'm paraphrasing here... what was it you wrote to me one time?

You may have more education, more worldly experiences, a higher IQ but you will never be smarter than me.

Something like that?

You have a college degree, so that is a given. You have travelled more becuase of work, so that is a given. If I said I had a higher IQ, which is very possible, you would have blown a gasket back then and demanded we meet at some IQ testing place at your expense (because I may have seen you posts about how much money you have once or twice :rolleyes: ) and it would have gone nowhere but downhill. I do think I am smarter than you, hell, if you had picked up on my post back then for all this obvious stufff and not had to try and twist it, maybe I wouldn't have had a solid argument, but we know that isn't the case, huh? A smart guy would have figured all this out, right? :D

BTW, I also said you had more life experience, but since you are way older than I am, that you win by default also. :p

Take it as a major victory after you twist it around and tell all your friends of your major accomplishments on DFWStangs if you need to, I don't mind. LOL

I really tried to post a response without hurting your feelings. Did I succeed? :D

[01WhiteCobra]

If I said I had a higher IQ, which is very possible, you would have blown a gasket back then and demanded we meet at some IQ testing place at your expense (because I may have seen you posts about how much money you have once or twice :rolleyes: )


Yes, I do have a higher IQ. The offer still stands.

I also make a shitload more than you. Roll those fucking eyes all you want. Somebody has to make more.

What you succeeded in doing was showing your ignorance on a subject in this thread... and continuing on without having a fucking clue. The epitomoe of arrogance.

But, hey, notchie, you're right. Just think... you'd have made $120 more a month if you could have lasted more than a semester at A&M.

BTW, I didn't travel because of work. I was fortunate enough to live in different cultures growing up.

Notch, seriously, look up your posts. You are so full of shit the average IQ person sees through your ignorance.

[Paladin]

Yes, I do have a higher IQ. The offer still stands.

I also make a shitload more than you. Roll those fucking eyes all you want. Somebody has to make more.

What you succeeded in doing was showing your ignorance on a subject in this thread... and continuing on without having a fucking clue. The epitomoe of arrogance.

But, hey, notchie, you're right. Just think... you'd have made $120 more a month if you could have lasted more than a semester at A&M.

BTW, I didn't travel because of work. I was fortunate enough to live in different cultures growing up.

Notch, seriously, look up your posts. You are so full of shit the average IQ person sees through your ignorance.

Everyone bow at the altar of Eric's ego. :rolleyes:

[01WhiteCobra]

Everyone bow at the altar of Eric's ego. :rolleyes:


No, notch, we all need to bow to the arrogance you have displayed in this thread.

Anytime you are ready for the IQ test you like me know. I'm buyin'.

[Paladin]

No, notch, we all need to bow to the arrogance you have displayed in this thread.

Anytime you are ready for the IQ test you like me know. I'm buyin'.

LOL, I knew you would go there. How about we have an ego test also. You think you would win that also?

Arrogance? How about the guy who talks about how much money he makes like people on here really care?

Have you been able to tell any friends recently about your exploits on DFWStangs yet?

BTW, I hope my bowing didn't delay my post too much. :rolleyes:

[01WhiteCobra]

LOL, I knew you would go there. How about we have an ego test also. You think you would win that also?

Arrogance? How about the guy who talks about how much money he makes like people on here really care?

Have you been able to tell any friends recently about your exploits on DFWStangs yet?

Right as usual Notchie, even when wrong.

[Paladin]

Right as usual Notchie, even when wrong.

I am still bowing for you oh great one!

[01WhiteCobra]

I am still bowing for you oh great one!

Thanks. I'm glad you know the drill o' weak one.

[Paladin]

Thanks. I'm glad you know the drill o' weak one.

You are so right Eric! Seriously, trust me, I really mean it!

[01WhiteCobra]

You are so right Eric! Seriously, trust me, I really mean it!

Seriously, notch. We need to work on your bowing skills.

[Paladin]

Seriously, notch. We need to work on your bowing skills.

I could always use lessons from you.......






















on how to be a bigger and more arrogant ass! :p

[01WhiteCobra]

I could always use lessons from you.......

on how to be a bigger and more arrogant ass! :p

I've been trying to educate you in this thread, Notchie.

Arrogance is grounded in assumptions and opinions. Sort of like you have displayed in this thread.

When do you want to take the IQ test? I'm buying.

[Paladin]

I've been trying to educate you in this thread, Notchie.

Arrogance is grounded in assumptions and opinions. Sort of like you have displayed in this thread.

When do you want to take the IQ test? I'm buying.

You missed your oppurtunity for the IQ test. I would have been interested if I cared or if I was younger. Two strikes is enough for me.

I am glad you are so worried about your IQ compared to mine that you realize we do actually need to test it to see if there is a difference. I would have thought your arrogant ass would have KNOWN it was higher. Let's just leave it to the imagination, I would hate to ruin your life if it came back bad for you. I do appreciate you caring so much though, I am tearing up over here. :p

BTW, I appreciate the confirmation about how right I was that you would need the test for your personal affirmation. I am happy to be right and sad that I am right all at the same time. LOL

[01WhiteCobra]

You missed your oppurtunity for the IQ test. I would have been interested if I cared or if I was younger. Two strikes is enough for me.

I am glad you are so worried about your IQ compared to mine that you realize we do actually need to test it to see if there is a difference. I would have thought your arrogant ass would have KNOWN it was higher. Let's just leave it to the imagination, I would hate to ruin your life if it came back bad for you. I do appreciate you caring so much though, I am tearing up over here. :p

BTW, I appreciate the confirmation about how right I was that you would need the test for your personal affirmation. I am happy to be right and sad that I am right all at the same time. LOL

You are awesome dude!

Even when you are ignorant you are right! Not too many of us can say that! I don't need a personal affirmation in this thread. Your ignorance has been golden in this thread.

BTW, I'm older than you, age is no excuse!

Notchie... threats mean shit. You should know that by now. But it does show the type of person you truly are. Run out of knowledge... attack personally. It has been your mode for quite some time. Typically that means you are frustrated with life. Sorry people differ in opinion... but, you are the only one in the world. You enforce the laws of Texas, not make new ones.

[Paladin]

You are awesome dude!

Even when you are ignorant you are right! Not too many of us can say that! I don't need a personal affirmation in this thread. Your ignorance has been golden in this thread.

BTW, I'm older than you, age is no excuse!

Notchie... threats mean shit. You should know that by now. But it does show the type of person you truly are. Run out of knowledge... attack personally. It has been your mode for quite some time. Typically that means you are frustrated with life. Sorry people differ in opinion... but, you are the only one in the world. You enforce the laws of Texas, not make new ones.

No, you are the real awesome dude!

Where is the threat? I am mocking you, so that is a threat? Give me a break dude, you think so highly of yourself that people who mock you are threatening?

Only in your world, not the real world idiot.

I laugh at you!

[01WhiteCobra]

No, you are the real awesome dude!

Where is the threat? I am mocking you, so that is a threat? Give me a break dude, you think so highly of yourself that people who mock you are threatening?

Only in your world, not the real world idiot.

I laugh at you!

Notchie, if you are laughing at me, I know I'm doing well. Thanks. It obviously means I'm doing the right thing.

[Paladin]

Notchie, if you are laughing at me, I know I'm doing well. Thanks. It obviously means I'm doing the right thing.

Good, I am actually glad.