Lounge of Tomorrow

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)
-   Daily Grind (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=3249)

scaeagles 10-10-2006 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser
I'm surprised that you would find it ridiculous to think that the dems were clueless. Isn't that a standard talking point? ;)

Clueless in knowledge, no. Clueless in application of knowledge, yes.:)

scaeagles 10-10-2006 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman
Can the Republicans among us please just man-up and stop casting blame where none lies?

All I've said is "if". I have not claimed a vast left-wing conspiracy. I will again point out that I am the one who brought this up and was beyond angry about it. I have calmed down a bit, obviously.

I will point out, though it doesn't really metter, that quoting from Time to me is like me quoting from Fox News to you.:)

Gemini Cricket 10-11-2006 06:42 AM

Quote:

A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates.
The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics."
Source

For Leo: ;)
Quote:

A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates.
The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics."
Source
Bold emphasis is done by Fox"News".

Alex 10-11-2006 08:59 AM

Whoa, deja vu. (In the sense of a high death toll number, that time in relation to the sanctions following the first Gulf War gets the press while the more legitimate methodologies don't get much play.)

I know counting the excess dead is hard to do, but I find it hard to believe that the organizations that actually try to count bodies are missing 13 out of 14 of them.

And there are obvious methodolical concerns with establishing how many people have died based solely on interviews rather than hard counts so I'd be interested in seeing the nitty gritty details on their methodologies.

And if, as the CNN version says, the study authors in a previous version admitted to doing it with specific political goals, then they aren't doing research, they are engaging in activism which should rightly cast a pall over their result.

€uroMeinke 10-11-2006 09:43 AM

Hmmm competeing body counts, reminds me of Vietnam...

SacTown Chronic 10-11-2006 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles
Clueless in knowledge, no. Clueless in application of knowledge, yes.:)

Perhaps, but the dems aren't so clueless as to invade Peter because they know Paul attacked America.

Strangler Lewis 10-11-2006 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup
. . .how many people have died based solely on interviews . . .

Those must have been "interviews" conducted in Abu Ghraib.

Alex 10-11-2006 09:56 AM

Huh?

Strangler Lewis 10-11-2006 11:03 AM

Death by interview.

Gemini Cricket 10-11-2006 11:05 AM

Even if the number is close to 655,000 it's wayyy too many.
:(


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.