Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 9, 2004 19:16
VIEWED: 9195
PAGE 8 of 9
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
And by the way. For these numbers to be "out of context", they actually have to be put into some sort of context. Which they weren't. Try again.
I think the absurdity of this statement proves my whole point. This is the kind of contradictory logic that is so pervasive among people who seek to justify their own preconceived notions. You see only what you want to see.
I think I'll have to spell it out for you. What I meant is that numbers are only numbers and they specify facts (see orig. post). So then, what context where they in?
I went to the super market today. Is this "out of context". How can it be? _*/It's just a statment/*_. There is *not* context here, just statments.
Any context you see, *you* put there.
And I find it funny that you pretty much admitted to not understanding what I said, yet you proceed to assume what I meant.
You talk about the absurdity of my statment. You say that I only see what I want to see. Perhaps you should look to yourself before you start to try to pass judgment on others.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Whatever the intentions are of the author it matters not when the numbers are facts, *not* opinions.
OK. So how do you react to these numbers? I'll even provide cites.
76 - Percent of Senate Intelligence Committee public hearings Sen. Kerry has not attended during his tenure on the committee
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241
64 - Percent of Senate roll call votes Sen. Kerry missed in 2003.
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0421103&PHPSESSID=e923581b16
91934a9dcfca5b7503cec7
Does the man never go to work? Is this the kind of work record you'd want from a man who wants to be President? Or Dog catcher?
Of course, if you check the cite for the second number, you'll see that Sen. Kerry had a 90%+ voting record for the years preceding 2003, a year in which when he was presumably campaigning a good bit of the time. So the second number is a classic example of taking a fact out of context.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
^^^ hey you neocon targ sucker... try not to be so obviously off topic jerk! 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
OK. So how do you react to these numbers? I'll even provide cites.
[snip]
One cannot prove that something is false by providing information unrelated to the topic at hand. So, you must enlighten me on how this is appropriate for *this* thread as this has *nothing* to do with GW's record nor the numbers presented above.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
OK. So how do you react to these numbers? I'll even provide cites.
[snip]
One cannot prove that something is false by providing information unrelated to the topic at hand. So, you must enlighten me on how this is appropriate for *this* thread as this has *nothing* to do with GW's record nor the numbers presented above.
It shows that true facts, stated out of context, can be used to deceive and mislead. I contend that the article which is the original topic of this post uses this technique. I gave an example of this in the post directly above, and in an earlier post about the Homeland Security Funds allocation figures quoted by Mr. Carter in the article in the original post.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
It shows that true facts, stated out of context, can be used to deceive and mislead. I contend that the article which is the original topic of this post uses this technique.
And of course the sheer volume of these facts doesn't move you. One must look at these facts and ask themselves, how can they be put into a good context? I dare you to put:
"""
200 Number of regulation rollbacks downgrading or weakening environmental laws in Bush's first three years in office.
"""
in a good light. If you read the first post you'll see *many* of these. So, much for you context issue.
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I gave an example of this in the post directly above, and in an earlier post about the Homeland Security Funds allocation figures quoted by Mr. Carter in the article in the original post.
Good for you, you found an example of what you're talking about. Have you found one in the list that this thread is talking about? _*/No/*_. Why don't you put your post in the context of this thread, then we'll talk.
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
and in an earlier post about the Homeland Security Funds allocation figures quoted by Mr. Carter in the article in the original post.
Whereas you basically just stated that you could verify the figures. I stated that these aren't the only figures by there own admission, which didn't seem to bother you. Therefore I believe that they are hiding things which you just came back to say that you could verify the figures easily. Ergo, the funds issue (this entire example of yours) is still in contention.
So, please don't state this as if it has been established.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ready for more years of the same...cleaning up his own mess this is new territory for the Bushes
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JaynezTown:
ready for more years of the same...cleaning up his own mess this is new territory for the Bushes
What are you taling about? There is no mess
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
While we're debating "propaganda," what do you
think about opening the invasion of Falujah
with an attack on the HOSPITAL?
According to our own press, U.S.-backed Iraqi forces
stormed the hospital, handcuffing people and
rounding up doctors, because our very first concern
is that Doctors not be allowed to screw up our
view of events by releasing casualty numbers and
making us look bad.
Reports already coming in that doctors are not
being permitted to treat injured Falujahians (sp)
and are being forcibly kept out of areas where there has been bombings or fightings.
Injured and dying Iraqis won't be treated,
because OUR side doesn't want the world to
know anything but our version of this action.
Anyone else have a comment on this?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by firefloozysuzie:
While we're debating "propaganda," what do you
think about opening the invasion of Falujah
with an attack on the HOSPITAL?
According to our own press, U.S.-backed Iraqi forces
stormed the hospital, handcuffing people and
rounding up doctors, because our very first concern
is that Doctors not be allowed to screw up our
view of events by releasing casualty numbers and
making us look bad.
Reports already coming in that doctors are not
being permitted to treat injured Falujahians (sp)
and are being forcibly kept out of areas where there has been bombings or fightings.
Injured and dying Iraqis won't be treated,
because OUR side doesn't want the world to
know anything but our version of this action.
Anyone else have a comment on this?
The Pentagon has noted that capturing the hospital may reduce what they consider inflated casualty claims like the ones issued during the Spring operation. Inflated claims by the insurgents, or coverup by the coalition...take your pick.
There are other, tactical, considerations.
The first major objectives of the attack were the highway bridges over the Euphrates river from the west. The hospital in question is within small arms range of these bridges. Since the insurgents have a history of making hospitals, mosques, schools, etc. into fighting positions, there are good tactical reasons for taking it as soon as possible. There were reportedly four fighters captured and 38 killed in the hospital. Expect to hear about the coalition shooting at mosques also, if they receive fire from them.
Keeping folk at the hospital handcuffed while you're sorting them out is a lot better than either shooting them all or letting the insurgents, who don't tend to wear uniforms, mix with the staff and pull out weapons later.
I imagine not letting medical aid, probably in ambulances, into the combat zone has a lot to do with the fact that the insurgents are expected to use car bombs, and any moving vehicle will likely be targeted. A captured ambulance could be especially effective in the car bomb role, as coalition forces might hesitate to fire on it. Why give the insurgents the opportunity?
There will undoubtedly be civilian casualties. Classic insurgency doctrine wants civilian casualties. The former regime forces, who probably make up a good percentage of the fighters in Falluja, didn't hesitate to use human shields during the early part of the war, and probably won't now. They want bodies on the ground for the cameras. They'll provide the bodies, and the cameras as well.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME