|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html
"A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros. Soros, 77, provided almost half the nearly $100,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead. The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology. New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003" The Liberals here would gladly blindly follow Joseph Stalin if he claimed to be anti-Bush. Soros is a Jew and yet has supported the Islamic terrorists almost from the start. The really weird thing is that Soros whose real name is Schwartz isn't a communist but quite a strong open society democrat (small d). But Soros is ANTI-GOVERNMENT to the point where he would blindly destroy ANY government with the belief that he could build a better one. Of course he's never done anything himself but spent money to destroy those things he cannot himself build. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
"A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a
result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros. Um... so what else is new? Do you think it was the tobacco industry that funded the studies showing that cigarettes kill people? No. The tobacco industry studies claimed there was no clear link. People who DISAGREED with that... you could call them anti-tobacco if you wish... funded the studies that showed otherwise. So why in the world would anyone think that somebody supporting, or even neutral towards the war in Iraq, would question and thus fund a study challenging the previously-claimed death figures? I'm not saying that 650,000 killed is accurate, nor the 151,000. But I will suggest that the existence of both estimates might get reasonable people to question whether either one is correct and perhaps lead to a method deriving a number that the majority of people can agree upon. So what exactly was your point again? --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message ... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html "A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros. Soros, 77, provided almost half the nearly $100,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead. The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology. New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003" The Liberals here would gladly blindly follow Joseph Stalin if he claimed to be anti-Bush. Soros is a Jew and yet has supported the Islamic terrorists almost from the start. The really weird thing is that Soros whose real name is Schwartz isn't a communist but quite a strong open society democrat (small d). But Soros is ANTI-GOVERNMENT to the point where he would blindly destroy ANY government with the belief that he could build a better one. Of course he's never done anything himself but spent money to destroy those things he cannot himself build. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 13, 7:25*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
"A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros. Um... so what else is new? Do you think it was the tobacco industry that funded the studies showing that cigarettes kill people? No. The tobacco industry studies claimed there was no clear link. People who DISAGREED with that... you could call them anti-tobacco if you wish... funded the studies that showed otherwise. So why in the world would anyone think that somebody supporting, or even neutral towards the war in Iraq, would question and thus fund a study challenging the previously-claimed death figures? I'm not saying that 650,000 killed is accurate, nor the 151,000. But I will suggest that the existence of both estimates might get reasonable people to question whether either one is correct and perhaps lead to a method deriving a number that the majority of people can agree upon. So what exactly was your point again? --Mike-- * * Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in ... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html Hey Mike I think the point is that this study was trotted out as THE study. They attacked everyone else who had come to different figures brutally, claimed they were all biased due to who was doing/ commissioning them, and they claimed to be pure as driven snow. We find out it was as questionable and sleazy as they claimed the rest of them are. They do the same sleazy things, but claim to be utterly virtuous. That more than anything makes me crazy. That and we find Soros at the bottom of just about everything attacking the US as a scumbag country, but they variously claim, "he's not really involved", "He didn't give them money", "They didn't do that, or say that". and then we find irrefutable evidence he, and they did all of the above. We need to be saved from the people who are saving us. Bill C |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
We need to be saved from the people who are saving us. Bill C I agree. And I agree with just about everything else you brought up. I just don't think *any* survey or scientific study should be taken seriously without looking at who's behind it. And invariably you will find opposing views looking to design a survey that supports their views. But not in ALL cases. That's not what I meant. Just that it shouldn't be in the least bit surprising to find biased methodologies coming from both sides of an issue, not just liberal, not just conservative. And that somehow the rest of us need to look at the surveys & studies to try and figure out what's behind them. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com "Bill C" wrote in message ... On Jan 13, 7:25 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote: "A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros. Um... so what else is new? Do you think it was the tobacco industry that funded the studies showing that cigarettes kill people? No. The tobacco industry studies claimed there was no clear link. People who DISAGREED with that... you could call them anti-tobacco if you wish... funded the studies that showed otherwise. So why in the world would anyone think that somebody supporting, or even neutral towards the war in Iraq, would question and thus fund a study challenging the previously-claimed death figures? I'm not saying that 650,000 killed is accurate, nor the 151,000. But I will suggest that the existence of both estimates might get reasonable people to question whether either one is correct and perhaps lead to a method deriving a number that the majority of people can agree upon. So what exactly was your point again? --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in ... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html Hey Mike I think the point is that this study was trotted out as THE study. They attacked everyone else who had come to different figures brutally, claimed they were all biased due to who was doing/ commissioning them, and they claimed to be pure as driven snow. We find out it was as questionable and sleazy as they claimed the rest of them are. They do the same sleazy things, but claim to be utterly virtuous. That more than anything makes me crazy. That and we find Soros at the bottom of just about everything attacking the US as a scumbag country, but they variously claim, "he's not really involved", "He didn't give them money", "They didn't do that, or say that". and then we find irrefutable evidence he, and they did all of the above. We need to be saved from the people who are saving us. Bill C |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
We need to be saved from the people who are saving us. Bill C I agree. And I agree with just about everything else you brought up. I just don't think *any* survey or scientific study should be taken seriously without looking at who's behind it. One might extend this a bit by noting that scientific studies are independent of the reporting on scientific studies. If a biased media outlet quotes a study in support of their pet positions, it doesn't necessarily mean that the cited study supports their conclusions. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
In article
, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote: We need to be saved from the people who are saving us. Bill C I agree. And I agree with just about everything else you brought up. I just don't think *any* survey or scientific study should be taken seriously without looking at who's behind it. And invariably you will find opposing views looking to design a survey that supports their views. But not in ALL cases. That's not what I meant. Just that it shouldn't be in the least bit surprising to find biased methodologies coming from both sides of an issue, not just liberal, not just conservative. And that somehow the rest of us need to look at the surveys & studies to try and figure out what's behind them. Perhaps we should examine most critically the studies that support our point of view. -- Michael Press |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
We need to be saved from the people who are saving us. Bill C I agree. And I agree with just about everything else you brought up. I just don't think *any* survey or scientific study should be taken seriously without looking at who's behind it. And invariably you will find opposing views looking to design a survey that supports their views. But not in ALL cases. That's not what I meant. Just that it shouldn't be in the least bit surprising to find biased methodologies coming from both sides of an issue, not just liberal, not just conservative. And that somehow the rest of us need to look at the surveys & studies to try and figure out what's behind them. Perhaps we should examine most critically the studies that support our point of view. -- Michael Press Absolutely!!! Self-doubt is not always a bad thing. And always, always, ALWAYS, it's those times I think I'm most-right about something that I'm likely to be wrong. Because what's make me feel most-right about something may very well be that I've squeezed those dissenting viewpoints out of my mind, thinking they're not worthy of consideration. I've recommended this before, I'll recommend it again. If you haven't see it, rent "The Fog of War" about Robert McNamara's personal reflections on what he/they did wrong in Vietnam. There are lessons for us all in that movie. You'd never think a subject like that could be so riveting, but it is. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 13, 5:01 pm, Bill C wrote:
Hey Mike I think the point is that this study was trotted out as THE study. They attacked everyone else who had come to different figures brutally, claimed they were all biased due to who was doing/ commissioning them, and they claimed to be pure as driven snow. I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological issues surrounding this issue. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
wrote in message
... On Jan 13, 5:01 pm, Bill C wrote: Hey Mike I think the point is that this study was trotted out as THE study. They attacked everyone else who had come to different figures brutally, claimed they were all biased due to who was doing/ commissioning them, and they claimed to be pure as driven snow. I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological issues surrounding this issue. He might not.... but then, neither do I. But the discussion is helping some of us to learn. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 13, 9:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological issues surrounding this issue. He might not.... but then, neither do I. But the discussion is helping some of us to learn. What'cha been learning from this discussion thus far? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Who's Surprised? | [email protected] | Racing | 39 | October 22nd 07 05:38 PM |
I'm surprised... | MagillaGorilla | Racing | 3 | September 5th 06 03:50 AM |
Surprised it hasnt been said but... | [email protected] | Racing | 0 | February 19th 06 11:07 PM |
Surprised, not surprised | db. | Recumbent Biking | 0 | January 23rd 06 10:48 PM |
Surprised you people aren't talking about this | Lame Acer | Racing | 1 | August 20th 04 06:53 PM |