Lounge of Tomorrow - The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Pelosi, milquetoast???? Um, what planet?

This one. Earth. She's not loud enough. And when she is, it comes off as strained and out of her realm to do so. She often strikes me as being someone with a personality to sell Tupperware than leading a group of politicians.

I can't really stand Nancy Pelosi so I don't look forward to her being in a position that will get her in the news even than she does now. But I'm sure she'd be fine at leading the House of Representatives from an administrative point of view.

I have a lot of political respect for Hilary Clinton though I don't agree with her on policy decisions so I don't have a problem with her as Senate majority leader, though I don't really see that happening. There'll be about 30 Democrat senators ahead of her in seniority, the body is very traditional in certain respects, and there's going to be too much concern that she won't be running the Senate but running for president and that isn't necessarily a good thing for the Senate's ability to function. But weirder things have happened.

I just read that as "House of Republicans". I need a nap.

ah- so it's the internet that has a left wing bias.

Considering that internet usage skews young, educated, urban, and somewhat middle class, that is hardly surprising.

The recent string of questionable YouTube removals is bothersome from an admnistrative point of view but I wouldn't expect it to continue under Google's control. Of course, I don't see how YouTube can continue at all under Google's control since now it has deep pockets that every IP owner will want a piece of. Google can no longer claim to simply be caching and somehow within fair use.

But Google is the company that refused to give info to the US Gov't but allowed China to filter and control access.

And that has what to do with this?

In both cases, Google was complying with local law (censorship is legal in many countries and Google complies with those laws as well). Can you find a history of Google censoring political views in the United States that it doesn't like? Has Google prevented the ability to find all the conservatives bitching online about YouTube shutting down Malkin?

Here are some random thoughts-

Quote:

365 days a year x 2 years = 365 x 2 = 730

so we get :

655000 divided by 730 days = 897.26 deaths PER DAY in Iraq to get this figure that the Lancet decided on.

For Gods sake the morgues would be full to overflowing, the hospitals would be crammed full..and no one even reported this????

That all the media that has been so busy trashing every minute detail in Iraq MISSED a bodycount that resembles the Black Plague???

Wait..the last report had 100,000 dead in what..2004?? Now the figure has jumped to FIVE TIMES THAT NUMBER and not ONE person has reported this???

And people are FALLING for this???

Quote:

No, it wasn't true at all. Even assuming that all of the accounts were accurate, the "researchers" didn't attempt to actually count bodies, they did a statistical analysis. And by doing so, they came up with a mean estimate for deaths of 98,000... with a 95% confidence interval of 0.92. Yes, that means that the margin of error was NINETY-TWO FRICKIN' PERCENT. 92%! How could any supposedly reputable researcher even release a study with such a ludicrous margin of error? How could a supposedly reputable academic journal (The Lancet) have published it?

Quote:

That number is bull shyt and much too high .The American Civil War in four years on both sides produced six hundred eighteen thousand dead (618,000)and that was the bloodiest American war to date.

Hmmm......yeah.

Actually, it wasn't the margin of error that was 92%; that was the number of households that ... at the conclusion of the interview ... produced a death certificate to back up their claims of who had died.

Hmmm, let's see, this was published in that hack rag The Lancet. And the methodology of the polling and accuracy of the results confirmed by that rookie John Zagby. And they had the audacity to use the same methodology that's been standard for death rate determination in war time by the U.N. and the U.S. government.

Yeah, the results must be bogus.

(oh, and I love how General Casey dismisses the study while admitting he has not seen it.)