I do harbor a deep disdain for the pledge of allegiance. And that isn't to say that I don't deeply appreciate what this country has given me. But, the pledge of allegiance contradicts everything the US should stand for. It's like the flag burning initiative that keeps coming up every so often. The way to inspire loyalty is to create the illusion of choice. The pledge of allegiance and laws against flag burning destroy that illusion.
And I can see the correllation between the US and nazi germany in that the media is feeding us hatred for muslims in spite of trying to create the illusion that our goal is only to eliminate islamic extremism. CNN the other day portrayed one of the most biased historical perspectives on middle eastern history I could've imagined.
But, as I understand it, there is something in the works that would require british law enforcement to give muslim clerics forewarning before conducting raids on households in muslims neighborhoods located in britain?
So, where do you draw the line? I think it gets to the point when things can be too PC. Don't you guys ever take into consideration your own safety?
No. They just think if we play nice, we'll be safe. I sometimes actually think they are HOPING we get attacked, JUST so they can cry more about how its "all our fault". Its sickening really.
No. They just think if we play nice, we'll be safe. I sometimes actually think they are HOPING we get attacked, JUST so they can cry more about how its "all our fault". Its sickening really.
Forgot, you aren't even american. Thus begs the question, why am I even discussing this with you? Arent there any problems in the UK you can go bitch about?
Forgot, you aren't even american. Thus begs the question, why am I even discussing this with you? Arent there any problems in the UK you can go bitch about?
That's correct. I am not 'even' American. As for bitching about problems in the U.K, I'd love to bitch about the place. I just get a kick out of taking the piss out of republicans on here - maybe because there's more of you on here than there are Conservative Brits.
cringe is one word
care is a totally different word.
If english is your second language, I forgive you.
If not, maybe you're simply no better than me,
and simply haven't learned that yet.
Forgot, you aren't even american. Thus begs the question, why am I even discussing this with you? Arent there any problems in the UK you can go bitch about?
Backed by the respected persons at one of our most respected medical centers, published by respected persons at one of our most respected medical journals, considered reliable by respected persons who are experts in the field, but shrugged off by culpable politicians and defense officials with whom you've laid your respect, here is the study:
the report bases 650,000 dead on a survey for 1849 households. that number is based on statistical assumptions. seems concrete to me.
You can't seriously object to it just because it's based on statistical assumptions? Every poll you read is based on statistical assumptions. A lot of the work the Census Bureau does is based on statistical assumptions -- and a lot more should be.
Statistical assumptions are based on science. Your rejection of them just reflects how scientifically illiterate we are as a nation.
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
Official and media criticism of Roberts’s work has focused on the size of his sample, 988 homes in 33 clusters distributed throughout the country, but other epidemiologists reject the notion that this is controversial.
Michael O’Toole, the director of the Center for International Health in Australia, says: “That’s a classical sample size. I just don’t see any evidence of significant exaggeration…. If anything, the deaths may have been higher because what they are unable to do is survey families where everyone has died.”
...Roberts has also compared his work in Iraq to other epidemiological studies: “In 1993, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control randomly called 613 households in Milwaukee and concluded that 403,000 people had developed Cryptosporidium in the largest outbreak ever recorded in the developed world, no one said that 613 households was not a big enough sample. It is odd that the logic of epidemiology embraced by the press every day regarding new drugs or health risks somehow changes when the mechanism of death is their armed forces.”
The campaign to discredit Roberts, the Johns Hopkins team, and the Lancet used the same methods that the U.S. and British governments have employed consistently to protect their monopoly on “responsible” storytelling about the war. By dismissing the study’s findings out of hand, U.S. and British officials created the illusion that the authors were suspect or politically motivated and discouraged the media from taking them seriously. This worked disturbingly well. Even opponents of the war continue to cite much lower figures for civilian casualties and innocently attribute the bulk of them to Iraqi resistance forces or “terrorists.”
ROTFL -- the Alabama department of homeland security has a picture of a terrorist training camp??? That is SO FUNNY!!!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- the people most afraid of terrorism live in places where it's least likely to occur.
I agree that alabama has pretty much a zero chance of getting attacked. but isnt an attack on our country an attack on all of us? thats how I see it anyway
I agree that alabama has pretty much a zero chance of getting attacked. but isnt an attack on our country an attack on all of us? thats how I see it anyway
Isn't an attack on Iraq an attack on all of us?
thats how I see it anyway
You can't seriously object to it just because it's based on statistical assumptions? Every poll you read is based on statistical assumptions. A lot of the work the Census Bureau does is based on statistical assumptions -- and a lot more should be.
Statistical assumptions are based on science. Your rejection of them just reflects how scientifically illiterate we are as a nation.
we are talking about dead people. not a projected count on the poplulation.
I agree that alabama has pretty much a zero chance of getting attacked. but isnt an attack on our country an attack on all of us? thats how I see it anyway
Yes, and I also think that the people in Alabama and Wyoming ought to defer to people in big cities about issues of counter-terrorism because people in big cities are much more threatened by the threat.
But people in Alabama and Wyoming DON'T feel the way you do. If they did, then their congressmen and senators wouldn't vote to lard their homeland security funds at the expense of NYC and LA and SF and Chicago.
You really aren't this naive, are you?
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
we are talking about dead people. not a projected count on the poplulation.
No, please, really.
Whenever demographers count "live" people, they take samples and make statistical assumptions about them. Every sophisticated census bureau uses these techniques. Why wouldn't you use them to count dead people?
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
Yes, and I also think that the people in Alabama and Wyoming ought to defer to people in big cities about issues of counter-terrorism because people in big cities are much more threatened by the threat.
But people in Alabama and Wyoming DON'T feel the way you do. If they did, then their congressmen and senators wouldn't vote to lard their homeland security funds at the expense of NYC and LA and SF and Chicago.
You really aren't this naive, are you?
homeland security funds are used for more then keeping islamic terroists from flying a plane into a higrise building.
a smart non naive guy like you should know that right?
homeland security funds are used for more then keeping islamic terroists from flying a plane into a higrise building.
a smart non naive guy like you should know that right?
Yeah, homeland security funds are used to pay for a morgue in Bumblefuck, Great Midwest. Which is a fucked up thing to spend homeland security funds on. I mean, when the nation enthusiastically supported the creation of the homeland security department, do you think they knew they'd be paying for a morgue out in the middle of a cornfield? Is that how we ought to be protecting ourselves from terrorism?
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
Yeah, homeland security funds are used to pay for a morgue in Bumblefuck, Great Midwest. Which is a fucked up thing to spend homeland security funds on. I mean, when the nation enthusiastically supported the creation of the homeland security department, do you think they knew they'd be paying for a morgue out in the middle of a cornfield? Is that how we ought to be protecting ourselves from terrorism?
how do you know exactly what its paying for? secondly, their is plenty of money to spend in the major cities. just like any other government program or dept there will be wasteful spending. you sound surprised.
Because I live in Bumblefuck with a brand new morgue paid for with Homeland Security funds. And I voted against the stupid bastard who was responsible. But my Congressman did the bidding of Tom Delay and so now we have a nice shiny cold place to keep our dead people.
secondly, their is plenty of money to spend in the major cities. just like any other government program or dept there will be wasteful spending. you sound surprised.
New York and DC -- you know, the locations of the previous attacks on the nation that were attacks on all of us -- didn't feel like there was plenty of money to go around.
In my mind, any money that the government spends on programs to protect the nation from being attacked my terrorists should be spent in major cities. While I'm sure that we all like our morgue here in the middle of the soybeans, that money would have been better spent protecting the ports. Or paying for more cops in Chicago.
This isn't waste -- this is just a dumb allocation of resources.
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
Because I live in Bumblefuck with a brand new morgue paid for with Homeland Security funds. And I voted against the stupid bastard who was responsible. But my Congressman did the bidding of Tom Delay and so now we have a nice shiny cold place to keep our dead people.
New York and DC -- you know, the locations of the previous attacks on the nation that were attacks on all of us -- didn't feel like there was plenty of money to go around.
In my mind, any money that the government spends on programs to protect the nation from being attacked my terrorists should be spent in major cities. While I'm sure that we all like our morgue here in the middle of the soybeans, that money would have been better spent protecting the ports. Or paying for more cops in Chicago.
This isn't waste -- this is just a dumb allocation of resources.
Comments
No. They just think if we play nice, we'll be safe. I sometimes actually think they are HOPING we get attacked, JUST so they can cry more about how its "all our fault". Its sickening really.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
O.k, and the U.S and Israel fulfills all of these criteria. Thanks.
Who exactly are these 'they' that you speak of?
You are truly hopeless. Why do you stay then?
you, for one.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Stay where? What are you on about?
Forgot, you aren't even american. Thus begs the question, why am I even discussing this with you? Arent there any problems in the UK you can go bitch about?
www.myspace.com/jensvad
That's correct. I am not 'even' American. As for bitching about problems in the U.K, I'd love to bitch about the place. I just get a kick out of taking the piss out of republicans on here - maybe because there's more of you on here than there are Conservative Brits.
keep spinning...
come on now, just say it..you don't care...
Wow.
I can't find anything else to say about that.
You're serious?
wait... of course you are...
the report bases 650,000 dead on a survey for 1849 households. that number is based on statistical assumptions. seems concrete to me.
Statistical assumptions are based on science. Your rejection of them just reflects how scientifically illiterate we are as a nation.
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
This is an article concerning an earlier report from the same organization whose findings you are dismissing....
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2006/davies0206.html
Official and media criticism of Roberts’s work has focused on the size of his sample, 988 homes in 33 clusters distributed throughout the country, but other epidemiologists reject the notion that this is controversial.
Michael O’Toole, the director of the Center for International Health in Australia, says: “That’s a classical sample size. I just don’t see any evidence of significant exaggeration…. If anything, the deaths may have been higher because what they are unable to do is survey families where everyone has died.”
...Roberts has also compared his work in Iraq to other epidemiological studies: “In 1993, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control randomly called 613 households in Milwaukee and concluded that 403,000 people had developed Cryptosporidium in the largest outbreak ever recorded in the developed world, no one said that 613 households was not a big enough sample. It is odd that the logic of epidemiology embraced by the press every day regarding new drugs or health risks somehow changes when the mechanism of death is their armed forces.”
The campaign to discredit Roberts, the Johns Hopkins team, and the Lancet used the same methods that the U.S. and British governments have employed consistently to protect their monopoly on “responsible” storytelling about the war. By dismissing the study’s findings out of hand, U.S. and British officials created the illusion that the authors were suspect or politically motivated and discouraged the media from taking them seriously. This worked disturbingly well. Even opponents of the war continue to cite much lower figures for civilian casualties and innocently attribute the bulk of them to Iraqi resistance forces or “terrorists.”
I agree that alabama has pretty much a zero chance of getting attacked. but isnt an attack on our country an attack on all of us? thats how I see it anyway
Isn't an attack on Iraq an attack on all of us?
thats how I see it anyway
we are talking about dead people. not a projected count on the poplulation.
I'm not Iraqi.
But people in Alabama and Wyoming DON'T feel the way you do. If they did, then their congressmen and senators wouldn't vote to lard their homeland security funds at the expense of NYC and LA and SF and Chicago.
You really aren't this naive, are you?
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
Did you even bother to read my previous post?
Whenever demographers count "live" people, they take samples and make statistical assumptions about them. Every sophisticated census bureau uses these techniques. Why wouldn't you use them to count dead people?
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
homeland security funds are used for more then keeping islamic terroists from flying a plane into a higrise building.
a smart non naive guy like you should know that right?
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
how do you know exactly what its paying for? secondly, their is plenty of money to spend in the major cities. just like any other government program or dept there will be wasteful spending. you sound surprised.
Because I live in Bumblefuck with a brand new morgue paid for with Homeland Security funds. And I voted against the stupid bastard who was responsible. But my Congressman did the bidding of Tom Delay and so now we have a nice shiny cold place to keep our dead people.
New York and DC -- you know, the locations of the previous attacks on the nation that were attacks on all of us -- didn't feel like there was plenty of money to go around.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/31/homeland.grants/index.html
In my mind, any money that the government spends on programs to protect the nation from being attacked my terrorists should be spent in major cities. While I'm sure that we all like our morgue here in the middle of the soybeans, that money would have been better spent protecting the ports. Or paying for more cops in Chicago.
This isn't waste -- this is just a dumb allocation of resources.
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
I agree with you. except that last part.
waste = dumb allocation of resources.
He's not a mere mortal. He's American.
are we blind to the fact that we are at war? were the germans human beings in WWII? yes they were. are iraqis? yes they are.
You are an occupying army fighting a civilian insurgence. So what's your point?
www.amnesty.org.uk