Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by 2 Timothy2:1-4, Jan 31, 2007.
This is from October of 2006. Are we living in the past?
Numbers and interviews can be stacked either way for or against any party. The sooner we learn that both parties are corrupt and need to be replaced, the better off we will be...
I cannot watch that video on Youtube since I am not at my home computer at this time. However I will make a quick general comment. The fact that after four years Baghdad is still not secure is an unforgivable failure of this administration's policies in Iraq. There is no information out there that could/will change my mind.
O, btw, I am very conservative. That is why I don't support failed presidents and their failed policies. Mainly when that president is not, himself, a conservative.
I wouldnt let the difference between the numbers 6 & 7 at the end of 200 confuse the timeline. This video is three months old.
I believe the Repubs quit being conservative a while ago. But to this point the video has not actually been addressed.
Enough said there....
At least we agree on this point, but until you guys stop rallying around them and vote in another, 3rd party, it's a mute point.
Nothing to adress in my opinion.
As I stated in my first post, you can stack the deck against or for ANY party at anytime. It's not always about the numbers, it's about the context and the reality of what is really going on. I think Martin's post was well stated.
Just because I disagree with the direction they have taken doesnt mean that I must hate them or disregard everything they do the way that some of you do. That is a rather childish endeavor.
Where did the hate come from in this thread? Nobody has said they hate him, just dislike the way he is running the country. It's sad to see how one can disagree with the president, and yet then be labeled as hating him.
I for one, disregard what he says because of his track record. This president has a bad habit of changing his mind, and in my opinion, making things up as he goes, so for that reason, yes, I discount what he says until I can find out that it's the truth.
I agree.. posting old information with numbers that can work for either side depending on the slant, yes, childish indeed, but oh well.. In politics, nothing is surprising any more..
I had no idea that radcal leftists could suppress information in the media. I bet that galls Rupert Murdoch no end.
It's just Glenn Beck pontificating against what he perceives (or would like us to believe that he perceives) as the bias of the left-wing media.
The media he rages against is hardy far left-wing, it's more centrist. The numbers he discusses, I had heard except for the 69 which I really don't know where he got, so his rant about info withheld is largely bogus.
Glenn Beck............... now there's a real genius for you, huh?
I heard him on the radio last week, and he said that at least 10% of the Muslim world is radical. That is wildly ridiculous. If there are a billion Muslims in the world, that would equate to 100 million radicals. If that were the case, we would be overrun.
And let's not forget that ridiculous question he posed to Congressman Ellison.
Regards Daisy, wishing God's Blessings to you and yours,
I see. You want to post against it without addressing the op directly. We have alot of redirection and shallow rehtoric that is off topic but no substance.
Selectively, with blinders on.
Shall I number the points for you?
The media Beck rages against is not "far left".
The "far left" doesn't control the media.
Murdock, who does control much of the media, is not left, let alone far left.
The numbers were in the news, except 69.
Where does "69" come from and is there anything to back it up?
Beck has gone off on bogus rants before and there doesn't seem to be any reason to take this one seriously.
If this is not worth taking seriously then why post at all. It appears to have some effect. While you attack the speaker you make vague criticisms but avoid the points.
Beck's opinion is just that...Beck's opinion. You post it, and when people don't agree with him (or you) you get upset with them. Oh well!
Interesting that you assign emotion to me that you cannot actually back up. I guess it helps you to feel better about. But I dont know really. In the end your just incorrect.
However, attacks on beck have been quite rampant but nothing of any substance has been offered with regards to the points in the op.
Ok, you're not upset...
No points were made in the OP - there was just a link to an old Beck fragment.
We have addressed the points he made, asked a question (so far unanswered) and noted that he is not reliable as to actual facts. I even made a summary for your convenience on post #12 which, instead of debating, you dismissed as having "no substance". Those counterpoints are as substantial as Beck's points - we can only work with what you've given.
So far, you've made no points of your own regarding the OP, even on the OP.
For the third time, where does the "69" come from?
The number 69 comes from the report found here. http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html
The remaining number of deaths percentage wise is 69%.
As far as your comments on Glenns reliability it is based o your particular political view and is as biased as they come. Since his source is outside of his own findings it isnt about his reliablility. He is addressing the credibility of the report.
And the left wing talking points you are repeating concerning the media biase is a common mantra from the left.
Thanks for answering the question.
How do you know where it comes from since he didn't say on the show? At any rate, that's interesting if it's true because the source you cited says that number, 31%, comes from the same Lancet report as the 655,000 number that Beck complained everyone knew.Key points of the study include:
• Estimated 654,965 additional deaths in Iraq between March 2003 and July 2006
• Majority of the additional deaths (91.8 percent) caused by violence
• Males aged 15-44 years accounted for 59 percent of post-invasion violent deaths
• About half of the households surveyed were uncertain who was responsible for the death of a household member
• The proportion of deaths attributed to coalition forces diminished in 2006 to 26 percent. Between March 2003 and July 2006, households attributed 31 percent of deaths to the coalition
Do you consider John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health to be not liberal? Among the articles linked to on their homepage are "Advisors Nix New Birth Control Rules" (CBS News re the new, lower hormone Pill), "Consequences: Gun Ownership Linked to Higher Homicide Rates" (NY Times), "Freeways' Tainted Air Harms Children's Lungs, Experts Say" (LA Times) and from its own JHSPH, "More Aid Required for Chronic Conditions in Low Income Countries" - sounds pretty darn liberal to me.
Googling "lancet coalition deaths 2006" brings sites such as BBC, Washington Post, and CNN among the 266,000 hits and that's just on page 1.
The claim that the so-called "liberal media" touted the 655,000 deaths and hushed the 69% is true ONLY in that the converse 31% number was the one used - but that is not exactly keeping a secret and hushing it up.
Well, you proved my point since both 655,000 and 31% are from the report, yet he chooses to make a stink about 69%. Even that misses the point of the Lancet study which was not just about direct deaths like the IraqBodyCount, but about increased death rates.
I'm not repeating "talking points"; these are my own words. That is a derailing personal attack; you have consistently attacked posters rather than argue their points on this thread. That's a very bad debating technique.
You haven't addressed the point about Murdock's ownership of much mass media.