PDA

View Full Version : One and one and one is three...maybe


memyselfI
02-03-2005, 04:38 PM
It's a numbers game in winning the perception of the Iraq election being a success...but who's numbers? :hmmm:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000788083


'Fuzzy Math' and the Iraqi Election
Everyone is delighted that so many Iraqis went to the polls on Sunday, but do the two turnout numbers routinely cited by the press -- 8 million and 60% -- have any basis in reality? And was the outpouring of voters in Sunni areas really "surprisingly strong"?

By Greg Mitchell

(February 02, 2005) -- Everyone, of course, is thrilled that so many Iraqis turned out to vote, in the face of threats and intimidation, on Sunday. But in hailing, and at times gushing, over the turnout, has the American media (as it did two years ago in the hyping of Saddam's WMDs) forgotten core journalistic principles in regard to fact-checking and weighing partisan assertions?

I'll be delighted if the turnout figure, when it is officially announced, exceeds the dubious numbers already enshrined by much of the media. But don't be surprised if it falls a bit short. The point is: Nobody knows, and reporters and pundits should stop acting like they do know when they say, flatly, that 8 million Iraqis voted and that this represents a turnout rate of about 60%.

Carl Bialik, who writes the Numbers Guy column for Wall Street Journal Online, calls this "a great question ... how the journalists can know these numbers -- when so many of them aren't able to venture out all over that country." Speaking to E&P on Wednesday, Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post -- one of the few mainstream journalists to raise questions about the turnout percentage -- referred to the "fuzzy math" at the heart of it.

Those with long memories may recall the downward-adjusted turnout numbers that followed violence-plagued elections in South Vietnam in 1967 and in El Salvador in 1984.

And one thing we now know for sure: the early media blather about a "strong" Sunni turnout has proven false. Adding a dose of reality, The Associated Press on Wednesday cited a Western diplomat who declared that turnout appeared to have been "quite low" in Iraq's vast Anbar province. Meanwhile, Carlos Valenzuela, the chief United Nations elections expert in Iraq, cautioned that forecasts for the Sunni areas were so low to begin with that even a higher-than-expected turnout would remain low.

In a rare reference to an actual vote tabulation, The New York Times on Thursday reports that in the "diverse" city of Mosul, with 60% of the count completed, the overall turnout seems slightly above 10%, or "somewhat more than 50,000 of Mosul's 500,000 estimated eligible voters."

This, of course, is no minor matter: Iraq's leading Sunni Muslim clerics said Wednesday that the country's election lacked legitimacy because large numbers of Sunnis did not participate in the balloting. Sure, many of them are simply sore losers (they lost an entire country) but that doesn't make their reaction any less troublesome for Iraq's future, especially with the cleric-backed Shiite alliance apparently headed for a landslide win.

Dexter Filkins of The New York Times warned Thursday that the widespread Sunni boycott "could even lead to the failure of the constitution; under the rules drafted last year to guide the establishment of a new Iraqi state, a two-thirds 'no' vote in three provinces would send the constitution down to defeat. The Sunnis are a majority in three provinces."

As for the overall Iraqi turnout: the more the better, but why is the press so confident in the estimates from an Iraqi commission with a clear stake in a high number?

For three days now, the press has routinely referred to the figure of 8 million Iraqi voters, following the lead of Farid Ayar, the spokesman for the Independent Electoral Commission for Iraq. In the original press citations, what Ayar actually said (hedging his bets) was "as many as 8 million," which most in the media quickly translated as "about 8 million," and then, inevitably, "8 million."

Curiously, the day before the election, according to press reports, Ayar had predicted that 7 to 8 million would turn out, giving him some incentive to later spot the numbers in that neighborhood.

Also, one dares to ask: If the commission expected close to 8 million, and that's what happened -- and there was less violence on election day than anticipated -- why was the turnout greeted as such a surprise? Especially since U.S. and Iraqi leaders have spent months knocking the press for failing to report that the vast majority of regions in this country are safe and friendly.

The percentage of turnout supplied by Ayar came to 57% (happily rounded off by the press to 60%). This was based on what was described as 14 million potential voters divided by those 8 million who braved the potential bullets and bombs to go to the polls.

On Sunday, while hailing the millions going to the polls, I also raised questions about the 14 million eligible figure: was that registered voters, or all adults over 18, or what? Few on TV or in print seem to be quite sure, to this day.

It's a big difference. Since Sunday, countless TV talking heads, such as Chris Matthews, and print pundits have compared the Iraq turnout favorably to U.S. national elections, not seeming to understand that 80%-90% of our registered voters usually turn out. The problem in our country is that so few people bother to register, bringing our overall turnout numbers way down.

Howard Kurtz at least looked into the Iraqi numbers. In a Tuesday column, he observed that "the 14 million figure is the number of registered Iraqis, while turnout is usually calculated using the number of eligible voters. The number of adults in Iraq is probably closer to 18 million," which would lower the turnout figure to 45% (if, indeed, the 8 million number holds up).

To put it clearly: If say, for example, 50,000 residents of a city registered and 25,000 voted, that would seem like a very respectable 50% turnout, by one standard. But if the adult population of the city was 150,000, then the actual turnout of 16% would look quite different.

"Election officials concede they did not have a reliable baseline on which to calculate turnout," Kurtz concluded.

He also quoted Democratic strategist Robert Weiner as saying: "It's an amazing media error, a huge blunder. I'm sure the Bush administration is thrilled by this spin."

Bloggers quickly questioned Kurtz's upgrade to 18 million, noting that the population of the country, according to many sources, is 25 million or so, and the population is heavily teenaged and younger. But other current estimates run as high as 27.1 million.

The critics also hit Kurtz for not providing a source for his 18 million figure. But Kurtz told E&P on Wednseday, "I talked to a couple of experts, one of whom was Ken Pollack, from Brookings, and also ran it by two of my reporters in Baghdad. But it is definitely an approximation, just trying to give a sense that -- the one thing everyone I consulted seems to agree on -- is that the 14 million, the baseline, is a very fuzzy figure because there was no registration."

He said he thought it was Pollack, "who studies this for a living," who pegged the adult population of Iraq at 17 or 18 million. "Maybe he leaned more toward 18 million," Kurtz added. "I don't know if this is a definitive figure but I was just trying to explain the difference between whatever that figure is and the 14 million that was so widely used by all the media as if it were everyone eligible -- which means, to me, everyone over 18. When in fact it was this concocted number about passive registration based on who got rations. The point is, it's all fuzzy math, and I was just trying to illustrate that."

He added: "This was my stab at just trying to tell readers the 60% figure that had been so widely touted was hardly definitive, and it may be lower."

All credit to the brave Iraqis who did vote, and in many places they did turn out in droves. But it occurred to me, watching the moving TV images on Sunday of people standing in line outside polling places in Sunni hot spots, that maybe, as so often, the camera lied. In many embattled Sunni cities, we'd been told, many if not most polling places never opened. Wouldn't this likely cause a crush, by even a few hundred voters, at the relatively few places that did open?

Not that anyone, that I know of, was asking.

HC_Chief
02-03-2005, 04:40 PM
You are a moron.

Baby Lee
02-03-2005, 05:03 PM
You are a moron.
Look at the bright side, she's gonna die some day.

Donger
02-03-2005, 05:08 PM
Yeah, sorry. Didn't get much farther than this: "Everyone is delighted that so many Iraqis went to the polls on Sunday, but..."

Cochise
02-03-2005, 05:11 PM
...and the grasping for straws in the midst of total rout begins.

Donger
02-03-2005, 05:22 PM
It's a numbers game in winning the perception of the Iraq election being a success.

It's not a perception, you fool; it's a simple truth.

I know that stirring the crap is one of your MO's (for whatever reason), but I would be stunned if even you really believe that the election itself could be called anything other than a success, at the very least.

RINGLEADER
02-03-2005, 06:23 PM
Only the libs can't seem to understand that the fact that there was a vote at all is the real story.

I'm sure we'll be able to read this latest exercise in stupidity from the D-Nise/Jaz crowd on Al-Jazeera.com any minute now...

BIG_DADDY
02-03-2005, 06:28 PM
Look at the bright side, she's gonna die some day.

Can't come soon enough, drinks are on me the day it happens.

Pants
02-03-2005, 07:25 PM
Only the libs can't seem to understand that the fact that there was a vote at all is the real story.

I'm sure we'll be able to read this latest exercise in stupidity from the D-Nise/Jaz crowd on Al-Jazeera.com any minute now...

Don't bunch all libs together. You people always do that shit, libs this and libs that, libs hate the troops, libs are happy when troops die, libs are happy when people die, etc. That's simply retarted and you people need to stop doing that.

Cochise
02-03-2005, 08:13 PM
Don't bunch all libs together. You people always do that shit, libs this and libs that, libs hate the troops, libs are happy when troops die, libs are happy when people die, etc. That's simply retarted and you people need to stop doing that.

ironic much?

SBK
02-03-2005, 09:33 PM
ironic much?

ROFL You people shouldn't point that crap out!

beavis
02-03-2005, 09:56 PM
'Fuzzy Math' and the Iraqi Election
'Fuzzy Math' and Social Security

Wonder when he'll write an article about that.

Bearcat2005
02-03-2005, 10:01 PM
Look at the bright side, she's gonna die some day.
:LOL:

KCWolfman
02-03-2005, 10:04 PM
Don't bunch all libs together. You people always do that shit, libs this and libs that, libs hate the troops, libs are happy when troops die, libs are happy when people die, etc. That's simply retarted and you people need to stop doing that.
He said while lumping all religious groups and people who follow said groups together.

Baby Lee
02-03-2005, 10:14 PM
Don't bunch all libs together. You people always do that shit, libs this and libs that, libs hate the troops, libs are happy when troops die, libs are happy when people die, etc. That's simply retarted and you people need to stop doing that.
I was tarted. . . Once. Never been retarted.

Rausch
02-03-2005, 10:54 PM
Look at the bright side, she's gonna die some day.

And it'll be BEFORE me...

StcChief
02-04-2005, 12:19 PM
The came out and voted.
Walked miles to do it.

Who cares the actual vs. estimated count.

We don't have an acurate pop count.

The Iraqi's want change get past it.

Pants
02-04-2005, 03:07 PM
I was tarted. . . Once. Never been retarted.

Thanks, genious moran. And cheese, yeah I said you people, as in the ones who posted on this thread.

InChiefsHell
02-04-2005, 03:17 PM
Don't bunch all libs together. You people always do that shit, libs this and libs that, libs hate the troops, libs are happy when troops die, libs are happy when people die, etc. That's simply retarted and you people need to stop doing that.

If the shoe fits...

...please name me the conservatives who hate the troops. The rest of the examples you gave are bunk.

SBK
02-04-2005, 04:26 PM
Thanks, genious moran.

ROFL Says the guy that can't spell genius or moron.

That's too much. Rep.

Pants
02-04-2005, 04:28 PM
ROFL Says the guy that can't spell genius or moron.

That's too much. Rep.

ROFL

Dude, that's the CP spelling of those words, just like retarTed. :shake: I'm glad you are of such high opinion about me.

Pants
02-04-2005, 04:29 PM
If the shoe fits...

...please name me the conservatives who hate the troops. The rest of the examples you gave are bunk.

I never said conservatives hated anybody, I said not all liberals hate the troops, or the rest of my "bunk examples".

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 04:43 PM
I never said conservatives hated anybody, I said not all liberals hate the troops, or the rest of my "bunk examples".
Really?
And Iowanian, it's hard to take a religion serious when the priest are raping little boys.

If you need other "bunk examples" they exist on the same thread.

Nice try, but you are wrong. You are guilty of your own prejudices, obviously.

Pants
02-04-2005, 04:54 PM
Really?


If you need other "bunk examples" they exist on the same thread.

Nice try, but you are wrong. You are guilty of your own prejudices, obviously.

I never said "All catholics rape little boys," I said I couldn't take the religion seriously. Just like I have no problem with conservatives hating liberals. I just don't want people to think I hate the troops. I could care less what they think about my political preference, as long as they know I don't take satisfaction when tragedies strike in Iraq.

Donger
02-04-2005, 04:54 PM
Really?


If you need other "bunk examples" they exist on the same thread.

Nice try, but you are wrong. You are guilty of your own prejudices, obviously.

Jeez, KCW. Go easy on the kid. He's going to KU, after all.

ROFL

Pants
02-04-2005, 04:56 PM
Jeez, KCW. Go easy on the kid. He's going to KU, after all.

ROFL

OMFG.

Donger
02-04-2005, 04:59 PM
I never said "All catholics rape little boys," I said I couldn't take the religion seriously. Just like I have no problem with conservatives hating liberals. I just don't want people to think I hate the troops. I could care less what they think about my political preference, as long as they know I don't take satisfaction when tragedies strike in Iraq.

Okay, so I have a question for you...

You said, "it's hard to take a religion serious when the priest are raping little boys."

So, since I assume that you acknowledge that not all priests rape little boys, you also have disdain and "don't take seriously" the Democratic party because a minority of their members burn American flags? Or, you "don't take seriously" the homosexual movement because some of their members are actively engaged in NAMBLA?

Donger
02-04-2005, 04:59 PM
OMFG.

Pardon?

Pants
02-04-2005, 05:04 PM
Okay, so I have a question for you...

You said, "it's hard to take a religion serious when the priest are raping little boys."

So, since I assume that you acknowledge that not all priests rape little boys, you also have disdain and "don't take seriously" the Democratic party because a minority of their members burn American flags? Or, you "don't take seriously" the homosexual movement because some of their members are actively engaged in NAMBLA?

I said don't say "all liberals hate the troops" just as I never said "all catholics rape little boys".

Pants
02-04-2005, 05:06 PM
Pardon?

What did my school have to do with anything? That's my main problem with D.C. Any discussion here involves people like you bringing in outside facts (irrelevant) to start stirring the shit up.

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 05:07 PM
I said don't say "all liberals hate the troops" just as I never said "all catholics rape little boys".
No, you said you cannot take an entire religion seriously merely because of the acts of a few people.

ENDelt260
02-04-2005, 05:07 PM
What did my school have to do with anything? That's my main problem with D.C. Any discussion here involves people like you bringing in outside facts (irrelevant) to start stirring the shit up.
It's called busting your balls. Sheezus. You should be less concerned about Donger cracking on KU as the fact that you completely failed to comprehend his other post.

Donger
02-04-2005, 05:08 PM
I said don't say "all liberals hate the troops" just as I never said "all catholics rape little boys".

That's true. But you certainly did intimate that since some Catholic priests rape little boys, you don't take the entire religion seriously.

So, I naturally assume that you apply that blanket criteria to other groups.

Am I wrong?

Donger
02-04-2005, 05:09 PM
What did my school have to do with anything? That's my main problem with D.C. Any discussion here involves people like you bringing in outside facts (irrelevant) to start stirring the shit up.

I'm a KU grad, you putz.

Pants
02-04-2005, 05:09 PM
It's called busting your balls. Sheezus. You should be less concerned about Donger cracking on KU as the fact that you completely failed to comprehend his other post.

Nah, I didn't fail to comprehend it, I just don't feel like arguing about that again. I just think government and religion are two completelly different things.

Donger
02-04-2005, 05:11 PM
Nah, I didn't fail to comprehend it, I just don't feel like arguing about that again. I just think government and religion are two completelly different things.

Fair enough.

So, to go back one of my examples, do you also "not take seriously" the homosexual movement because a few of their members also rape underage boys?

Pants
02-04-2005, 05:14 PM
No, you said you cannot take an entire religion seriously merely because of the acts of a few people.

First of all that was only a part of my argument, one that I used simply because it was so blatant and easily proven. I also happened to mention that most religios persons are hypocrites (every religious person I've met in my life), since they constantly do the things that are forbidden by their religion.

Pants
02-04-2005, 05:15 PM
Fair enough.

So, to go back one of my examples, do you also "not take seriously" the homosexual movement because a few of their members also rape underage boys?

That's completelly irrelevant. Straight white men also rape little girls. Priest are religious leaders, they preach and teach other people how to act, yet they themselves do the most horrendous acts. People are supposed to follow them.

Baby Lee
02-04-2005, 05:16 PM
First of all that was only a part of my argument, one that I used simply because it was so blatant and easily proven. I also happened to mention that most religios persons are hypocrites (every religious person I've met in my life), since they constantly do the things that are forbidden by their religion.
Some are hypocrites, some are just human.

Donger
02-04-2005, 05:18 PM
That's completelly irrelevant.

It's only irrelevant to you because you don't like the answer.

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 05:19 PM
That's completelly irrelevant. Straight white men also rape little girls. Priest are religious leaders, they preach and teach other people how to act, yet they themselves do the most horrendous acts.
You are dodging the question - Did you lump an entire religion in a single pigeonhole due to the acts of a few priests and then complain about someone else lumping an entire group of liberals in a single pigeonhole due to the comments of some extremists?

You really don't even need to answer the question as it is already plainly visible in your quotes, but dodging the answer by attempting to sidetrack makes you not only culpable, but less than honest as well.

Pants
02-04-2005, 05:19 PM
Some are hypocrites, some are just human.

Exactly. That's why religion is BS. I'm not religious, yet I believe in God. I also act human and there is no religion to tell me that it's wrong to act that way. In many cases I act better than people who go to church.

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 05:21 PM
First of all that was only a part of my argument, one that I used simply because it was so blatant and easily proven. I also happened to mention that most religios persons are hypocrites (every religious person I've met in my life), since they constantly do the things that are forbidden by their religion.
More prejudism on a thread where you complain about prejudices.

So you have met more than 2 billion people in your lifetime? That is the only way you can determine MOST religious people are hypocrites. Otherwise, your comment is full of uninformed prejudism.

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 05:22 PM
Some are hypocrites, some are just human.
I don't think he caught your sarcasm

Baby Lee
02-04-2005, 05:22 PM
I said don't say "all liberals hate the troops" just as I never said "all catholics rape little boys".
Nobody has said "all liberals hate the troops."

You said "it's hard to take a religion serious when the priest are raping little boys."

Ringleader said "Only the libs can't seem to understand that the fact that there was a vote at all is the real story."

I read that a lot, A LOT, closer to "it's hard to take libs serious when their leaders don't know the vote is the real story," than "all liberals hate the troops."

Donger
02-04-2005, 05:23 PM
In many cases I act better than people who go to church.

Perhaps you do.

But, the issue here is your dismissal of an entire religion based on the actions of a small number of deviants. Yet, you apparently refuse to apply that same criteria to other groups; groups that I suspect you support.

There's a word for that, FYI.

Donger
02-04-2005, 05:23 PM
I don't think he caught your sarcasm

Give him a break. He's going to KU, after all.

Pants
02-04-2005, 05:24 PM
You are dodging the question - Did you lump an entire religion in a single pigeonhole due to the acts of a few priests

No, I used that as one exampe of why the idea is wrong, since it's so easy to use and easily proven (like I said before).

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 05:24 PM
Give him a break. He's going to KU, after all.
Damn, this is where I got on

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 05:25 PM
No, I used that as one exampe of why the idea is wrong, since it's so easy to use and easily proven (like I said before).
You did not state "The idea of religion is wrong". This statement is false as well.

Donger
02-04-2005, 05:25 PM
Damn, this is where I got on

Close enough to Groundhog Day to be getting some residuals, I guess.

Pants
02-04-2005, 05:27 PM
More prejudism on a thread where you complain about prejudices.

So you have met more than 2 billion people in your lifetime? That is the only way you can determine MOST religious people are hypocrites. Otherwise, your comment is full of uninformed prejudism.

That's because religion tells you not to lie, not to be jealous and turn the other cheek (few examples), name me ONE person who has followed at least one of these rules.

ENDelt260
02-04-2005, 05:27 PM
Ned Ryerson!

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 05:28 PM
That's because religion tells you not to lie, not to be jealous and turn the other cheek (few examples), name me ONE person who has followed at least one of these rules.
Oh, come on. Now you are attempting to sidetrack again. I will gladly address this comment in full after you admit you made a blanket statement against a group of people without knowing those people while bitching about somebody else doing the exact same thing.

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 05:30 PM
Ned Ryerson!
NeedleNose Ned? Ned the Head?

Pants
02-04-2005, 05:30 PM
Nobody has said "all liberals hate the troops."

You said "it's hard to take a religion serious when the priest are raping little boys."

Ringleader said "Only the libs can't seem to understand that the fact that there was a vote at all is the real story."

I read that a lot, A LOT, closer to "it's hard to take libs serious when their leaders don't know the vote is the real story," than "all liberals hate the troops."

Wow, simply wow. "All liberals hate the troops" was an example. And there are threads full of that on this forum, don't even try to tell me shit like that has not been said here before.

Baby Lee
02-04-2005, 05:32 PM
That's because religion tells you not to lie, not to be jealous and turn the other cheek (few examples), name me ONE person who has followed at least one of these rules.
No wonder you hate religion. You have a profound misapprehension of what it is.

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 05:32 PM
Wow, simply wow. "All liberals hate the troops" was an example. And there are threads full of that on this forum, don't even try to tell me shit like that has not been said here before.
Either you are truly dense about your own hypocrisy on this topic, or you just like to create a stir where one does not exist.

Of course prejudiced statements have been made on this board - Hell, you have made them yourself on this very thread. The sad thing is you believe you have a pass to do so and others are not allowed.

Pants
02-04-2005, 05:34 PM
Oh, come on. Now you are attempting to sidetrack again. I will gladly address this comment in full after you admit you made a blanket statement against a group of people without knowing those people while bitching about somebody else doing the exact same thing.

You have my quote, I can't argue against that. But that statement was only a part of what I said on that thread.

Pants
02-04-2005, 05:35 PM
Either you are truly dense about your own hypocrisy on this topic, or you just like to create a stir where one does not exist.

Of course prejudiced statements have been made on this board - Hell, you have made them yourself on this very thread. The sad thing is you believe you have a pass to do so and others are not allowed.

That was aimed at Baby Lee, not you. I'm having multiple arguments here, as always.

Baby Lee
02-04-2005, 05:35 PM
Wow, simply wow. "All liberals hate the troops" was an example. And there are threads full of that on this forum, don't even try to tell me shit like that has not been said here before.
Remind me again, what quote did you CITE when you started on this losing tirade?

And you can't say you're tired of people saying specific things, and when informed that no one actually said those specific things, reply "well, that was just an example."

No shit!! It's the example you provided, and levelled as an allegation.

It's quickly becoming "Rock Block Hollow Knock K U."

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 05:35 PM
You have my quote, I can't argue against that. But that statement was only a part of what I said on that thread.
No doubt. It was only part of a conversation. But the fact remains that you made a prejudiced statement regarding a group of people based upon your own limited personal experiences with a miniscule amount of those people. Which is exactly what you complained about on this thread.

Pants
02-04-2005, 05:35 PM
No wonder you hate religion. You have a profound misapprehension of what it is.

I don't hate it. I just think it's unecessary and the world would be a much happier place without it.

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 05:36 PM
That was aimed at Baby Lee, not you. I'm having multiple arguments here, as always.
The target doesn't matter. My comment is still 100% true.

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 05:36 PM
I don't hate it. I just think it's unecessary and the world would be a much happier place without it.
Funny, that is the way I feel about liberals.

Now, why am I prejudiced and you aren't?

Pants
02-04-2005, 05:37 PM
Remind me again, what quote did you CITE when you started on this losing tirade?

And you can't say you're tired of people saying specific things, and when informed that no one actually said those specific things, reply "well, that was just an example."

No shit!! It's the example you provided, and levelled as an allegation.

It's quickly becoming "Rock Block Hollow Knock K U."

ROFL

He was bunching the liberals together, was he not? My argument was against that, in that same argument I brought in other examples of the same thing going on in other threads. Why do you have a problem with that?

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 05:40 PM
ROFL

He was bunching the liberals together, was he not? My argument was against that, in that same argument I brought in other examples of the same thing going on in other threads. Why do you have a problem with that?
I believe it is your hypocrisy he has a problem with, not your statement in itself.

It's like that kid, Mike Hall, who punched you in 4th grade and when you hit him back, he cried to the teacher to try to get you in trouble. You are Mike Hall

stevieray
02-04-2005, 05:42 PM
no offense, Metro, but you are swimming with Sharks.


Good luck.

Baby Lee
02-04-2005, 05:43 PM
ROFL

He was bunching the liberals together, was he not? My argument was against that, in that same argument I brought in other examples of the same thing going on in other threads. Why do you have a problem with that?
I got no sense whatsoever that he was lumping 'the liberals' together. First sense was that he was lamenting the specific faction that was putting this kind of rhetoric [in the thread header] out. Second sense was that he was also lamenting that DNC national leadership [or whatever other left-leaning standard bearer[s] you prefer] is giving said specific faction the floor on their behalf in this time of, what most would see as, some form of vindication for Bush's policies.

Donger
02-04-2005, 05:44 PM
no offense, Metro, but you are swimming with Sharks.


Good luck.

Sshhhhhh! I'm a lamprey.

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 05:44 PM
Sshhhhhh! I'm a lamprey.
Carrion scum sucker

Baby Lee
02-04-2005, 05:45 PM
Sshhhhhh! I'm a limpwrist.
TMI!!!

Donger
02-04-2005, 05:45 PM
Carrion scum sucker

ROFL

Donger
02-04-2005, 05:46 PM
TMI!!!

Heh! You got a problem with homosexuals?

Probably just because a few of them like to rape little boys...

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 05:47 PM
Funny, that is the way I feel about liberals.

Now, why am I prejudiced and you aren't?
I have an odd feeling he isn't going to be answering this one.

Donger
02-04-2005, 05:48 PM
I have an odd feeling he isn't going to be answering this one.

"Because it's irrelevant."

Seems to be the de facto back-against-the-wall answer.

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 05:48 PM
"Because it's irrelevant."

Seems to be the de facto back-against-the-wall answer.
College kids...


Jeez I hope he calls this a prejudiced statement, too.

Donger
02-04-2005, 05:50 PM
College kids...


Jeez I hope he calls this a prejudiced statement, too.

Go easy on him. He's going to KU.

Pants
02-04-2005, 05:56 PM
I have an odd feeling he isn't going to be answering this one.

Heh, this is all too silly. You are using a statement by me, taken out of context, to say that I dislike religion due to the fact that little boys keep getting raped. That's not true. The raping is just one problem, a blatant one.

And Donger, there are sick, twisted people everywhere, but the one place where there shouldn't be any - is in the ranks of the preachers. Your example IS truly irrelevant. Homosexuals who rape little boys are like Heterosexuals who rape little girls, what does it have to do with this conversation?

Now, if you don't mind, I have to go take an online quizz and I'll be going out. Nice talking to you gentlemen. All I ever wanted was for people to know that I don't hate the troops and that I'm happy there was a vote. This would only seem fair, since I don't think that you guys go around raping little boys.

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 05:58 PM
Heh, this is all too silly. You are using a statement by me, taken out of context, to say that I dislike religion due to the fact that little boys keep getting raped. That's not true. The raping is just one problem, a blatant one.

And Donger, there are sick, twisted people everywhere, but the one place where there shouldn't be any - is in the ranks of the preachers. Your example IS truly irrelevant. Homosexuals who rape little boys are like Heterosexuals who rape little girls, what does it have to do with this conversation?

Now, if you don't mind, I have to go take an online quizz and I'll be going out. Nice talking to you gentlemen. All I ever wanted was for people to know that I don't hate the troops and that I'm happy there was a vote. This would only seem fair, since I don't think that you guys go around raping little boys.
You didn't answer the question, did you?

I am not even talking about your original prejudiced statement, I am talking about your current one.

You stated you believe the planet would be better without religion. I believe it will be better without liberals. Is my statement prejudiced? If so, why isn't yours?

Pants
02-04-2005, 05:58 PM
You didn't answer the question, did you?

I am not even talking about your original prejudiced statement, I am talking about your current one.

You stated you believe the planet would be better without religion. I believe it will be better without liberals. Is my statement prejudiced? If so, why isn't yours?

Religion causes major conflicts, death, destruction and hunger. It also causes hate for no apparent reason.

Donger
02-04-2005, 06:00 PM
And Donger, there are sick, twisted people everywhere, but the one place where there shouldn't be any - is in the ranks of the preachers. Your example IS truly irrelevant. Homosexuals who rape little boys are like Heterosexuals who rape little girls, what does it have to do with this conversation?

That's true.

So, by your established criteria, you also do not take all heterosexuals who rape little girls and all homsosexuals who rape little boys "serious," correct?

Pants
02-04-2005, 06:02 PM
That's true.

So, by your established criteria, you also do not take all heterosexuals who rape little girls and all homsosexuals who rape little boys "serious," correct?

I take them serious, just like I take the rapist priests serious.

jcl-kcfan2
02-04-2005, 06:04 PM
Religion causes major conflicts, death, destruction and hunger. It also causes hate for no apparent reason.


So do liberals...

stevieray
02-04-2005, 06:04 PM
Religion causes major conflicts, death, destruction and hunger. It also causes hate for no apparent reason.

nope. humans do.

Pants
02-04-2005, 06:05 PM
nope. humans do.

Yes, but religion is one of the main catalysts. Right up there with greed.

Pants
02-04-2005, 06:06 PM
So do liberals...

Umm, no.

Donger
02-04-2005, 06:06 PM
I take them serious, just like I take the rapist priests serious.

As you should.

But, do you include them in your apparent blanket statement of revulsion and disdain, as you do with regards to the Catholic Church?

Yes or no.

stevieray
02-04-2005, 06:07 PM
Yes, but religion is one of the main catalysts. Right up there with greed.

Nope. Men have free will.

jcl-kcfan2
02-04-2005, 06:08 PM
Umm, no.
Umm, yes.

ENDelt260
02-04-2005, 06:09 PM
no offense, Metro, but you are swimming with Sharks.


Good luck.
No offense to metro? You just called Baby Lee a shark! You're prejudiced against lawyers! You anti-barristite!

Pants
02-04-2005, 06:14 PM
As you should.

But, do you include them in your apparent blanket statement of revulsion and disdain, as you do with regards to the Catholic Church?

Yes or no.

It's not a yes or no question. Religion is choice, a choice one takes IN ORDER NOT TO ACT the way those priests do. Religion EXISTS to prevent such things from happening, yet people who propone religion and are there to guide people in their morality are the ones who perform these acts. Sexuality, on the other hand is not a choice, you can't say it's hypocritical of a homosexual to rape a little boy. It is wrong to do in both cases, but hypocritical in only one.

stevieray
02-04-2005, 06:14 PM
No offense to metro? You just called Baby Lee a shark! You're prejudiced against lawyers! You anti-barristite!


"eaten alive"

Donger
02-04-2005, 06:28 PM
It's not a yes or no question. Religion is choice, a choice one takes IN ORDER NOT TO ACT the way those priests do. Religion EXISTS to prevent such things from happening, yet people who propone religion and are there to guide people in their morality are the ones who perform these acts. Sexuality, on the other hand is not a choice, you can't say it's hypocritical of a homosexual to rape a little boy. It is wrong to do in both cases, but hypocritical in only one.

Let's break this down...

Not all priests rape little boys, but some do, and you use that as your rationale behind dismissing the entire Catholic Church because choosing a religion is a choice.

Not all homsosexuals rape little boys, but some do, and you use that as your rationale behind not dismissing all homosexuals because choosing sexuality is not a choice.

Is that your position?

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 06:52 PM
Religion causes major conflicts, death, destruction and hunger. It also causes hate for no apparent reason.
You still didn't answer the question, did you? Instead you keep going off on wild tangents. Are you related to Duhnise?

Again, why is my statement prejudiced and yours not?

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 06:53 PM
Yes, but religion is one of the main catalysts. Right up there with greed.
And politics, MR. Hypocrite.

Donger
02-04-2005, 06:57 PM
Are you related to Duhnise?

Heh. I was actually thinking the same. The boy does show promise...

KCWolfman
02-04-2005, 07:18 PM
Heh. I was actually thinking the same. The boy does show promise...
What I have learned:

Metro - I hate prejudiced people
KCWolf - Yes, but you made prejudiced comments
Metro - Oh, come on, religion is bad
KCWolf - I understand your viewpoint, but why is it you make prejudiced comments and then attempt to disparage others for doing the same
Metro - Because religion is the root of all evil
KCWolf - That's no answer, why are you allowed to make prejudiced comments and no one else can?
Metro - Because priests rape people
KCWolf - Again, Why can YOU make several prejudiced statements on this thread while complaining about others prejudiced statements
Metro - Because greed is prevalent.

I've seen less dancing at a Rocky Horror Picture Show gathering.

Just admit you are a bigot and you don't like other bigots.

SBK
02-04-2005, 08:21 PM
ROFL

Dude, that's the CP spelling of those words, just like retarTed. :shake: I'm glad you are of such high opinion about me.

I thought you were just trying to make an ironic post. I got a good chuckle out of it. If it's how you actually spell we should work on that or something! ROFL

It's why I hit you with some rep.

Pants
02-05-2005, 03:13 AM
Let's break this down...

Not all priests rape little boys, but some do, and you use that as your rationale behind dismissing the entire Catholic Church because choosing a religion is a choice.

Not all homsosexuals rape little boys, but some do, and you use that as your rationale behind not dismissing all homosexuals because choosing sexuality is not a choice.

Is that your position?

Aigh, here we go again, like I said 1000 times already, rapist priests are just one reason I dismiss Catholisism, I also dismiss any other religion and I've given you some of the reasons why.

KCW, I still don't know why you bring in politics into this, religion is very different from governments. I have nothing against catholics, just against the religion they choose to follow, like I said, I never stated that all catholics rape children, so I was against people saying all liberals "hate the troops", etc.

Donger, reread my posts where I explain why I think homosexualism has nothing to do with this, something about hypocracy.

Cochise
02-05-2005, 08:51 AM
Heh! You got a problem with homosexuals?

Probably just because a few of them like to rape little boys...

Don't you mean THOSE PEOPLE need to stop raping little boys?

KCWolfman
02-05-2005, 09:50 AM
Aigh, here we go again, like I said 1000 times already, rapist priests are just one reason I dismiss Catholisism, I also dismiss any other religion and I've given you some of the reasons why.

KCW, I still don't know why you bring in politics into this, religion is very different from governments. I have nothing against catholics, just against the religion they choose to follow, like I said, I never stated that all catholics rape children, so I was against people saying all liberals "hate the troops", etc.

Donger, reread my posts where I explain why I think homosexualism has nothing to do with this, something about hypocracy.
Good God, you are truly dense. This is not a matter of politics or religion. This is a matter of prejudiced statements you have made - both on this thread and on others I have quoted, while you complain about RL making prejudiced statements. All else is merely you attempting to deflect from your own shortcomings with the gooblygook you have posted above.

Break it down to only the statements below and give an HONEST answer, not deflection:

Metro: I believe the world would be a better place without religion
KCWolf: I believe the world would be a better place without liberals


Why is my statement prejudiced and yours not? This is the only question that matters and one you have deliberately dodged for days now. If you are honest with us and yourself, you will see that your hypocrisy is blatant.

stevieray
02-05-2005, 10:20 AM
Good God, you are truly dense. This is not a matter of politics or religion. This is a matter of prejudiced statements you have made - both on this thread and on others I have quoted, while you complain about RL making prejudiced statements. All else is merely you attempting to deflect from your own shortcomings with the gooblygook you have posted above.

Break it down to only the statements below and give an HONEST answer, not deflection:

Metro: I believe the world would be a better place without religion
KCWolf: I believe the world would be a better place without liberals


Why is my statement prejudiced and yours not? This is the only question that matters and one you have deliberately dodged for days now. If you are honest with us and yourself, you will see that your hypocrisy is blatant.


cue theme from Jaws in 3...2...1...

Pants
02-05-2005, 01:49 PM
Good God, you are truly dense. This is not a matter of politics or religion. This is a matter of prejudiced statements you have made - both on this thread and on others I have quoted, while you complain about RL making prejudiced statements. All else is merely you attempting to deflect from your own shortcomings with the gooblygook you have posted above.

Break it down to only the statements below and give an HONEST answer, not deflection:

Metro: I believe the world would be a better place without religion
KCWolf: I believe the world would be a better place without liberals


Why is my statement prejudiced and yours not? This is the only question that matters and one you have deliberately dodged for days now. If you are honest with us and yourself, you will see that your hypocrisy is blatant.

Because you single out freaking people, I single out a concept.

Donger
02-05-2005, 02:49 PM
Because you single out freaking people, I single out a concept.

Religion is a concept created by people.
Liberalism is a concept created by people.

Are they both not?

Pants
02-05-2005, 03:34 PM
Religion is a concept created by people.
Liberalism is a concept created by people.

Are they both not?

If we compare the concepts, then I don't see how either of the statements is prejudiced. As long as we don't say, all "christians/jews/muslims/etc do this and that" and all "liberals do this and that" which was my original argument.

I have no problem with you saying you can't take liberalism seriously because there are some extreme liberals who "hate the troops and burn American flags", as long as you don't say all liberals do that. Although, if that was the only reason for your judgement, I'd call you stupid.

headsnap
02-05-2005, 03:42 PM
If we compare the concepts, then I don't see how either of the statements is prejudiced. As long as we don't say, all "christians/jews/muslims/etc do this and that" and all "liberals do this and that" which was my original argument.

I have no problem with you saying you can't take liberalism seriously because there are some extreme liberals who "hate the troops and burn American flags", as long as you don't say all liberals do that. Although, if that was the only reason for your judgement, I'd call you stupid.

if there was no Liberalism would there be any liberals?


what is Religion without the religious?



you are about to fall off your tightrope of semantics... ;)

Pants
02-05-2005, 04:31 PM
if there was no Liberalism would there be any liberals?


what is Religion without the religious?



you are about to fall off your tightrope of semantics... ;)

Yeah, but by saying you can't take Liberalism serioulsy, you don't incriminate liberals, like when you do when you say "all liberals do this and that".

Donger
02-05-2005, 05:07 PM
If we compare the concepts, then I don't see how either of the statements is prejudiced. As long as we don't say, all "christians/jews/muslims/etc do this and that" and all "liberals do this and that" which was my original argument.

I have no problem with you saying you can't take liberalism seriously because there are some extreme liberals who "hate the troops and burn American flags", as long as you don't say all liberals do that. Although, if that was the only reason for your judgement, I'd call you stupid.

If you had listed the other reasons why you don't take the Catholic church seriously, instead of just that a few priests are sexual deviants, you'd not be in your present position.

You made the assertion. So, back it up or retract it.

headsnap
02-05-2005, 05:18 PM
Yeah, but by saying you can't take Liberalism serioulsy, you don't incriminate liberals, like when you do when you say "all liberals do this and that".

I can't take liberals seriously... :)

RINGLEADER
02-05-2005, 06:07 PM
Don't bunch all libs together. You people always do that shit, libs this and libs that, libs hate the troops, libs are happy when troops die, libs are happy when people die, etc. That's simply retarted and you people need to stop doing that.

So you must be a lib? Maybe you can point me to the libsfordemocracyiniraq.com website or show me a progressive movement dedicated to promoting and giving thanks to our troops. Because I can point you to dozens of websites by libs that say just the opposite...

RINGLEADER
02-05-2005, 06:10 PM
I never said conservatives hated anybody, I said not all liberals hate the troops, or the rest of my "bunk examples".


Hmm. I do remember some prominent lib, who also runs the Dem party, say recently that he hates everything Republicans stand for...

Anyway, my previous offer still stands...if you want to point the way to any progressive movement that exists to support our troops I'd love to consider joining...

RINGLEADER
02-05-2005, 06:12 PM
I said don't say "all liberals hate the troops" just as I never said "all catholics rape little boys".


Seeing as this came as a response to my original post perhaps you could point out where I said that...you seem to be swinging at arguments that were never made.

BTW, the polls fully support my original statements. As do the leading liberal websites. As does the first post to this thread.

KCWolfman
02-05-2005, 06:16 PM
Because you single out freaking people, I single out a concept.
LOL - So your prejudice is for groups and mine is for individuals, so somehow you have higher moral ground?

Does KU offer a course in Logic? If so, I recommend taking it next semester.

KCWolfman
02-05-2005, 06:18 PM
If we compare the concepts, then I don't see how either of the statements is prejudiced. As long as we don't say, all "christians/jews/muslims/etc do this and that" and all "liberals do this and that" which was my original argument.

I have no problem with you saying you can't take liberalism seriously because there are some extreme liberals who "hate the troops and burn American flags", as long as you don't say all liberals do that. Although, if that was the only reason for your judgement, I'd call you stupid.
Who said "all liberals hate troops"?

I never read that statement once. I read a generalized statement about the liberal front, just as I read a generalized statement about religious groups.

Unless you can find that exact quote, you have no ground to base your stance upon.

RINGLEADER
02-05-2005, 06:18 PM
Wow, simply wow. "All liberals hate the troops" was an example. And there are threads full of that on this forum, don't even try to tell me shit like that has not been said here before.


I like you...you make me laugh.

Now your response to my post was just as "example"?

I guess kind of like your responses are just an "example" of how the libs are reacting to good news out of Iraq.

I won't bother to point out that one of the "examples" actually happened and one of them happened only in your head...