This is precisely the problem with the youth of today compared to my Great Generation. Just one gamer kicks the bucket and 100 others run away from the scene scared. Come on guys, show some courage. Show some sticktoitiveness.
Yeah, back in my day, kids would play on a pogo stick until they dropped dead. They played on the pogo stick in three feet of snow snow, uphill, both ways! And when you tell kids that today, they never believe you.
And it's funny, I was just in Poland (Krakow) two months ago. The place felt *worlds* more free than NYC or London.
I had the same experience going to Indonesia. Upon coming back to the US, I felt like I was going into some uber-bureaucratic fascist nightmare. Dealing with security people in Indonesia is like dealing with real, live human beings. Dealing with security people in the US is like dealing with robots.
Of course. Where else do you think Saddam Hussein hid the Weapons of Mass Destruction? He had to hide them in the artic, where we would least expect them. He was fiendishly clever, that Saddam.
I have a little trouble with the general concept that paying taxes is a moral act, particularly when the taxes go for trillions of dollars in war-making activities that only a small fraction of the population agree with, not to mention funding attacks against one's self
Well, if he were evading taxes as a protest against the military campaigns of the US, I would actually have some respect for him in that particular area. But somehow, and especially considering how creationists by and large tend to be Bush supporters, I doubt this is the case.
Restating what you were wrong about doesn't make you any less wrong.
Keep allowing yourself to be used. The rest of us laugh about it behind your back.
And who would that be? The people who still believe Bush was put in his position by God, that there was a Saddam-Al Qaida connection, and that we found the WMDs?
I actually raised quite a lot of points in my last post, but as is typical with people like you, you didn't bother to actually respond to any of them but merely acted dismissively. Did you bother to read the "Criticism" section of the article I cited? Somehow I doubt it. And, as I stated previously, the article (by Fred Kaplan) that supposedly disproves the Lancet study shows a complete misunderstanding of basic statistics. He states that the study is a "dart board" between 8000 and 194000. The 95% confidence interval cited by Lancet simply means that 95% of the standard normal distribution lies between 9000 and 194000, with a mean of 98000 (if you don't understand this, don't even try to respond since you obviously know nothing about what you boldly proclaim). The second study found that "March 18, 2003, and June, 2006, an additional 654,965 (392,979-942,636) Iraqis have died above what would have been expected on the basis of the pre-invasion crude mortality rate as a consequence of the coalition invasion".
The techniques used in the study are the basis of a vast array of studies relating to things like disease mortality, natural disaster mortality, and other event in which a proper count is not possible. The only reason anyone questions this particular study is because they don't want to accept the results. That way, you can go around believing that you are not a vicious, murdering animal who feels okay with the deaths of millions of innocent people so long as you can get cheaper gas (oh, that's right, you're not even getting that Bushbot).
Anyway, I'm sure your next response will not in the least touch upon anything perceived to actually be wrong with the study, or with how the paper by Fred Kaplan (again, a scientifically untrained journalist) shows a complete misunderstanding of statistics. Your next response will probably be something like "Haw! Haw! Lib'rul claptrap!" or something else on the same level as your last response.
Re:There should never be a settled issue in scienc
on
Science vs. Homeopathy
·
· Score: 1
Heavens! Is there anything left we're allowed to laugh at?
Squirrels. We can laugh at squirrels. And rabbits. Especially the exploding kind.
By specifically mentioning America, you seem to be implying that this isn't happening all over the western world. You're a tool.
You're not very good at this whole "reading" thing, are you Mr. Coward. I'll give you an example that even your obviously feeble mind should be able to understand.
You are an idiot. Now, by my saying that you are an idiot, that does not in any way imply that I believe everyone else is a genius. As to the specific topic at hand, yes I do believe that erosions of rights are occuring throughout much of the Western world right now. But, America and Britain are leading the pack. In fact, it looks like they are trying to out do each other in some sort of sick fascism race.
It's pretty telling that you link to a discredited study and then disappear after being told it was discredited.
If by "disappear" you mean "do something other than read slashdot", then sure. The Lancet was not "discredited" simply because a journalist criticized the study. In fact, if you read the article I cited, Fred Kaplan's article is discussed in the "Criticism" section. What, you mean you responded without actually reading the article I cited?
Ask yourself why you're allowing yourself to be so easily manipulated, and no don't bother protesting, you linked to an article that is well know to be garbage and didn't think twice about it.
Why do you assume I am being "easily manipulated"? That's right, because I come to different conclusion than you did. Again, you are simply going on the yammerings of a journalist, not someone who is actually knowledgable. Read the "Criticism" section in the article I cited. The Lancet study was actually a rather cautious one. They visited all the places selected by solid statistical methods that are used in plenty of other types of analyses. The only reason they were not accepted by certain people is because it cast certain politicians in a bad light. If Lancet's study about Iraq mortality are invalid, then so are a host of other studies that have been relied upon which no one has disputed.
Again, you apparently seem to be confused, since you believe that a journalist's uninformed opinion somehow invalidates a study.
You're a tool for one side as much as Bush is a tool for the other, the difference being you're not even smart enough to realize it.
Ah yes, the old "if they disagree with me, it must be because they are stupid" line. Let me ask you this. Do you honestly believe that, with all the indiscriminate bombing ("shock and awe" as such), atrocities such as prison torture and rape, "disappearing" people, and regularly gunning down civilians at checkpoints (all of which are well documented, and these are just the ones we know about), do you really believe that the number of civilian deaths has been insignificant? Even if you do not accept the Lancet study (though, since your denial of it is based on the inaccurate conclusion of a scientifically-untrained journalist, I believe "easily manipulated" and "not even smart enough to realize it" would be more appropriate appellations for you) it is clear that a unacceptably large number of civilians in Iraq have died and/or been tortured as a direct result of the actions of the American occupational forces.
Such as what? What are you not able to express publicly in America?
How about peaceful protests in New York at the Republican National Convention of 2004? That's just off the top of my head. There are plenty more examples both overt and covert.
The "600,000 civilians" is a crap number, and it has to stop. Prove it.
The 600,000 civilians number comes from a comprehensive and scientifically valid statistical analysis published in Lancet
(with a discussion of the study here). Here is another article that shows overall casualty figures. The only reason you call it a "crap number" is for the same reason Fuhrer Bush calls it that. It is inconvenient and uncomfortable for you. You want to believe that you are your filthy president (I can never call him "my president" with a straight face) are decent human beings and not the murdering scum that you really are.
There are the unfortunate mistakes in the fog of war, and the terrible bad things that soldiers have done. These are the exception, though.
Ah yes, the old "collateral damage" and "unfortunate accidents" argument. Except that civilian areas have been specifically targetted and the torture and abuse by soldiers was ordered and pressured from the very top. That does not, of course, excuse any of the soldiers who have done these things, but it does show that it is more than simple exceptions to the rule.
Did you really just attempt to portray the US forces as more repressive than Saddam?
Really?
The US military, under W, has killed more than 600,000 civilians. We've already seen how much rape and torture has been committed by our troops, and that's just what we know about.
Do you really think that an Iraqi civilian being cut to pieces by a daisy cutter bomb is thinking "Thank God I'm not being cut to pieces by Saddam's industrial shredders. God bless America!". Or, that a 13 year old girl being raped by American soldiers is thinking "At least I'm being raped by these wonderful American soldiers, and not Saddam's sons."
And the democratic party was also for "separate but equal" and limiting civil rights of colored people*.
These were the Southern Democrats (like Strom Thurmond - which party did he change to?). The Democratic party used to be a national party until Johnson got the Civil Rights Act passed. All the people who were lividly against it wound up Republicans later on.
At least I, as an American, am allowed to think of such things.
So are the Chinese. The problem is, how much are you practically able to express these things publicly? Recent events have shown that to be rapidly eroding in America.
He can not possibly claim that his privacy has been violated in any way which is meaningful in China.
Or, you could look at it this way: A guy in China is claiming that his privacy has been violated by Microsoft. It sounds much more severe that way, doesn't it?
This might just be a Pennsylvania thing then. I know I always thought it was retarded, but it's how they do things here. I guess I just assumed it was like that everywhere.
Well, in Pennsylvania (except perhaps Philadelphia and Pittsburgh), a juror cannot even drive a car to the courthouse since they don't want the judge's horse disturbed and upset by those loud, new-fangled "automobiles".
I've tendered suspicions that he's been killed and has become some sort of advanced government prototype for a Turing test. Then I wonder what difference that would make if it were true. Then I think about TNG where Riker and Picard argue whether Data could be considered alive
You sir are now the proud owner of the Special Gold Star Geek Card:-p.
If other countries hate George Bush, would you hate George Bush too?
I don't hate George W Bush because other countries hate him. I hate W because he is trying to become a dictator and has caused the deaths of millions of innocent civilians. Oddly enough, other countries hate him for pretty much the same reasons.
Do you really think that Giuliani would be worse than Bush/Cheney?
Well, he did try to have an excuse (based on 9/11) to keep being mayor of New York even after his term limit was up. Imagine him doing that sort of thing as president.
I agree with your general sentiment, although I happen to live in Taiwan where every Western-looking person is an American, even if they're really English, German, French, Austrian, Russian, Italian, Irish, Canadian etc.
True, there are "rednecks" in any society. I have Chinese friends, but then I've also had the misfortune of working with Chinese who think anything or anyone that is non-Chinese is inherently bad and/or stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually raised quite a lot of points in my last post, but as is typical with people like you, you didn't bother to actually respond to any of them but merely acted dismissively. Did you bother to read the "Criticism" section of the article I cited? Somehow I doubt it. And, as I stated previously, the article (by Fred Kaplan) that supposedly disproves the Lancet study shows a complete misunderstanding of basic statistics. He states that the study is a "dart board" between 8000 and 194000. The 95% confidence interval cited by Lancet simply means that 95% of the standard normal distribution lies between 9000 and 194000, with a mean of 98000 (if you don't understand this, don't even try to respond since you obviously know nothing about what you boldly proclaim). The second study found that "March 18, 2003, and June, 2006, an additional 654,965 (392,979-942,636) Iraqis have died above what would have been expected on the basis of the pre-invasion crude mortality rate as a consequence of the coalition invasion".
The techniques used in the study are the basis of a vast array of studies relating to things like disease mortality, natural disaster mortality, and other event in which a proper count is not possible. The only reason anyone questions this particular study is because they don't want to accept the results. That way, you can go around believing that you are not a vicious, murdering animal who feels okay with the deaths of millions of innocent people so long as you can get cheaper gas (oh, that's right, you're not even getting that Bushbot).
Anyway, I'm sure your next response will not in the least touch upon anything perceived to actually be wrong with the study, or with how the paper by Fred Kaplan (again, a scientifically untrained journalist) shows a complete misunderstanding of statistics. Your next response will probably be something like "Haw! Haw! Lib'rul claptrap!" or something else on the same level as your last response.
You are an idiot. Now, by my saying that you are an idiot, that does not in any way imply that I believe everyone else is a genius. As to the specific topic at hand, yes I do believe that erosions of rights are occuring throughout much of the Western world right now. But, America and Britain are leading the pack. In fact, it looks like they are trying to out do each other in some sort of sick fascism race.
Why do you assume I am being "easily manipulated"? That's right, because I come to different conclusion than you did. Again, you are simply going on the yammerings of a journalist, not someone who is actually knowledgable. Read the "Criticism" section in the article I cited. The Lancet study was actually a rather cautious one. They visited all the places selected by solid statistical methods that are used in plenty of other types of analyses. The only reason they were not accepted by certain people is because it cast certain politicians in a bad light. If Lancet's study about Iraq mortality are invalid, then so are a host of other studies that have been relied upon which no one has disputed.Again, you apparently seem to be confused, since you believe that a journalist's uninformed opinion somehow invalidates a study.
Ah yes, the old "if they disagree with me, it must be because they are stupid" line. Let me ask you this. Do you honestly believe that, with all the indiscriminate bombing ("shock and awe" as such), atrocities such as prison torture and rape, "disappearing" people, and regularly gunning down civilians at checkpoints (all of which are well documented, and these are just the ones we know about), do you really believe that the number of civilian deaths has been insignificant? Even if you do not accept the Lancet study (though, since your denial of it is based on the inaccurate conclusion of a scientifically-untrained journalist, I believe "easily manipulated" and "not even smart enough to realize it" would be more appropriate appellations for you) it is clear that a unacceptably large number of civilians in Iraq have died and/or been tortured as a direct result of the actions of the American occupational forces.
Ah yes, the old "collateral damage" and "unfortunate accidents" argument. Except that civilian areas have been specifically targetted and the torture and abuse by soldiers was ordered and pressured from the very top. That does not, of course, excuse any of the soldiers who have done these things, but it does show that it is more than simple exceptions to the rule.Do you really think that an Iraqi civilian being cut to pieces by a daisy cutter bomb is thinking "Thank God I'm not being cut to pieces by Saddam's industrial shredders. God bless America!". Or, that a 13 year old girl being raped by American soldiers is thinking "At least I'm being raped by these wonderful American soldiers, and not Saddam's sons."
1n 0+h3r n00s, 73rr0r1$7$ @r3 c0mmu.n1c@71ng s0131y 1n 1337
Aaaahhhh!!!! [jumps out window]