Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 9, 2004 19:16
VIEWED: 9195
PAGE 7 of 9
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Statistics can only be considered meaningful when they are taken in context. The oldest trick in the book is to pull a bunch of statistics out of context and claim it proves your point. Anyone who has watched a toothpaste advertisement should know this.
True.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
These statistics prove nothing, except who is gullible or who is looking out for the anti-Bush talking points. No fair-minded person would take this article to be meaningful.
You do realize that there *is* a difference between quoting actual number and quoting statistics. Most of the above are just numbers, and the others are easily checked.
Example of the former:
37 Death toll of US soldiers in Iraq in May 2003, the month combat operations "officially" ended.
Example of the later:
5 Percentage of the world's population that is American.
25 Percentage of the world's oil used by America.
I'd say only a fair-minded person would be able to realize these things. And since most of these number aren't percentages or they are percentages that are well established, I'd say, try again.
----
"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
A number taken out of context is a number that is meaningless, whether it is a percentage or an actual number. Granted percentages are more meaningless in that condition, but it doesn't change that this article is, in the end, saying nothing. It simply lists a bunch of numbers, and leaves the conclusion to the reader. Which might be fine if the article weren't entitled "Four Years of Double Standards." The truth, however, is that I can take just about any 4 year stretch, pretend everything that happened in that 4 years is the direct intent of a certain person, select a bunch of numbers without explanation and then claim that these numbers represent double standards of that person. Explanations of these numbers might reveal that, in fact, there are no double standards, but you won’t know one way or the other without those explanations. It's the oldest trick in the book. 37 combat deaths mean what? You see in these numbers only want you wanted to see.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
A number taken out of context is a number that is meaningless, whether it is a percentage or an actual number. Granted percentages are more meaningless in that condition, but it doesn't change that this article is, in the end, saying nothing. It simply lists a bunch of numbers, and leaves the conclusion to the reader. Which might be fine if the article weren't entitled "Four Years of Double Standards." The truth, however, is that I can take just about any 4 year stretch, pretend everything that happened in that 4 years is the direct intent of a certain person, select a bunch of numbers without explanation and then claim that these numbers represent double standards of that person. Explanations of these numbers might reveal that, in fact, there are no double standards, but you won’t know one way or the other without those explanations. It's the oldest trick in the book. 37 combat deaths mean what? You see in these numbers only want you wanted to see.
I find it bizarre that the very people who go on and on about the indeterminacy of information like this, criticizing people for seeing "what they want to see" in a bunch of facts, that these very same people will turn around and justify an administration that has made the most ruinous assumptions based on bad data, skewed their own facts, caused the wrongful deaths of tens of thousands (oops!) of people and then cooked the information again to justify themselves after the fact.
So someone with access to billions of dollars in tax payers' money and the power to put thousands of American soldiers in harm's way based on faulty or outright dishonest intelligence are less accountable than some folks online "jumping to conclusions." Talk about double standards!
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know, I just came to the very sobering realization: Pro-Bush is faith-based voting. These people have got religion and neither facts nor logic will sway them.
Most people can't point to a single thing Bush has done for them. The only two popular groups that can point to some kind of kinship are the born-agains and the militarists.
Frankly, I don't think you can change a born-again's mind. Anyone who thinks that Jesus has spoken to them personally despite all physical evidence to the contrary is pretty much beyond redemption. You can show them the shills and microphones that drive the healing shows and their favorite preacher in bed with two hookers and it doesn't make a dent. Might as well talk to a crack addict about quitting.
The remainder have a very black/white view of the world: You're either with us or against us; I'm either totally safe or facing WW3. Nuance is not part of their repetoire, which is why thay have faith in GWB- he speaks their language and promises that we'll "win" and be perfectly safe again. So the fact that they being manipulated by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney for some other agenda just doesn't penetrate. These people are so deeply in denial that NOTHING will make a difference to their faith.
www.bushsbrain.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Note: Edited ... 'cause I fugged up. ;p
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Pro-Bush is faith-based voting. These people have got religion and neither facts nor logic will sway them.
Yes, it's well known that the Bushites milk the fundamentalist nuts in the USA for votes (I've seen giant flat screens on tabernacles with GWBs piggy face preaching. Preaching is his speach style, ever notice?). This is framed as a War against Islam. GWB said it himself in not so many words (because he only has a few).
BTW Geezer, when someone states GWB never went to a military funeral it isn't an invitation to a bullshiet strawman arguement from the peanut gallery of paid propagandists. So F*** ***... {we have lost Ghouly transmition due to Echelon interferance... thanx Daddy!}
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
A number taken out of context is a number that is meaningless, whether it is a percentage or an actual number. Granted percentages are more meaningless in that condition, but it doesn't change that this article is, in the end, saying nothing. It simply lists a bunch of numbers, and leaves the conclusion to the reader.
I'd hate to tell you but this is what journalism is supposed to be. Not the editorial presented as fact/truth that the US has.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Which might be fine if the article weren't entitled "Four Years of Double Standards." The truth, however, is that I can take just about any 4 year stretch, pretend everything that happened in that 4 years is the direct intent of a certain person, select a bunch of numbers without explanation and then claim that these numbers represent double standards of that person.
This article does something that no US "news" agency has done. It's prereq. is that the reader has been paying attention over the past years.
I'm sorry that you don't understand. Perhaps you should goto some US "news" source where they can tell you what you want to hear (read that as Bush admin. propaganda).
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You see in these numbers only want you wanted to see.
Aren't you doing this very thing?
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.
----
"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 HKCavalier:
I find it bizarre that the very people who go on and on about the indeterminacy of information like this, criticizing people for seeing "what they want to see" in a bunch of facts, that these very same people will turn around and justify an administration that has made the most ruinous assumptions based on bad data, skewed their own facts, caused the wrongful deaths of tens of thousands (oops!) of people and then cooked the information again to justify themselves after the fact.
So someone with access to billions of dollars in tax payers' money and the power to put thousands of American soldiers in harm's way based on faulty or outright dishonest intelligence are less accountable than some folks online "jumping to conclusions." Talk about double standards!
Nice post. But it will soon be lost once Geezer or one of those other paid liars draw you into a baloney arguement about anything but the point. Which just high-jacks the thread andd those who want to talk about what bastards Dick Cheney and the rest are.
You are nearly defencless against people who do this for a living. They come in and defend the undefendable all day, weekdays, 9 to 5. Why? They are paid obviously. I'm of the opinion no one could have read Sigy or HKs posts for this long without gaining some wisdom. I know I have.
Yeah, I'm constantly amazed people on AMerican news shows just put up with insane statements that are obviously wrong, a lie, or just stupid.
Stupidity is considered an opinion in the USA.
But guess what America... that's not the case in the rest of the world. You know, that entire planet that is against the Bush White House. The whole frickin' world. You know, the world that had the largest protests in HISTORY against the Iraq Invasion.
you'd think that would matter to Ameri... oh wait. It doesn't.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I'd hate to tell you but this is what journalism is supposed to be. Not the editorial presented as fact/truth that the US has.
This article does something that no US "news" agency has done. It's prereq. is that the reader has been paying attention over the past years.
I'm sorry that you don't understand. Perhaps you should goto some US "news" source where they can tell you what you want to hear (read that as Bush admin. propaganda).
When the "About the Author" blurb included with Mr. Carter's article includes the line "In recent months he has transformed the regular editor's letter at the front of the magazine into less of a chat about its coming contents the spreads of Annie Leibowitz and rants of Christopher Hitchens and more a full-bore diatribe against the world of George Bush." I'm not exactly reassured that his presentation is entirely un-biased. Can you let me know why I should be?
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.
Huh?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
When the "About the Author" blurb included with Mr. Carter's article includes the line "In recent months he has transformed the regular editor's letter at the front of the magazine into less of a chat about its coming contents the spreads of Annie Leibowitz and rants of Christopher Hitchens and more a full-bore diatribe against the world of George Bush." I'm not exactly reassured that his presentation is entirely un-biased. Can you let me know why I should be?
Whatever the intentions are of the author it matters not when the numbers are facts, *not* opinions.
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer: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.
Huh?
Note: It's directed to Finn Mac Cumhal, but see below.
----
"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