DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Cynthia on July 15, 2008, 01:51:02 PM
-
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/deaths.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/deaths.asp)
-
Perspective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_2_deaths#Total_Human_Losses)
-
It's just one more example of the right wing's use of smoke and mirrors to "demonstrate" a "fact" which common sense and everyday logic tells any sane and normal person is just totally absurd. The "alternate reality" or Bizzarro World of the extreme right, where up is down, black is white and it can all be "proven" by reference to "authoritative" sources, be they doctored stats NIEs or whatever. Does anyone see a pattern here?
Despite two ongoing, savage, fiercely contested wars, more American military lives were lost under the preceding administrations than under war-mongering "President" G.W. Bush. Here, look, the figures prove it. Tiny Iraq and its 23 million people pose an existential threat to the U.S.A. and its 300 million people ten thousand miles away that is so imminent and dire that only an invasion can save the larger nation from its tiny foe. Here, look at the NIEs, they "prove" it.
Goebbels and Hitler may have invented the technique of the Big Lie, but there is no doubt at all that it was Bush and Cheney and their crooked administration and twisted MSM supporters who perfected it.
-
Anyone understand that jibberish? I definately was able to grasp the hyperbolic distortions & unfounded accusations, in play. SOP for the most part, when this subject comes up
-
<<Anyone understand that jibberish?>>
Wrong question. Anyone NOT understand it? I think this time, even sirs got it.
-
<<Anyone understand that jibberish?>>
Wrong question. Anyone NOT understand it?
Naaa, 1st question was more applicable. The only thing one everyone might "understand" is your position on how evil Bush is supposed to be. That you could pull from the hyperbolic jibberish
-
Moving right along, and assuming that sirs is correct after all in saying that only he can understand my "gibberish" (thanks, sirs, it's nice to know that someone understands me) I take it from sirs' posts in this thread that he does not believe that (a) Bush lied the country into war or (b) that right-wing propagandists massaged statistics into the dubious (read false, read big lie) "conclusion" that more military deaths occurred under Clinton's administration than under Dubya's.
There ya go. And once again we have yet another fine demonstration of "independent" (read crazed, illogical) thinking from the outer reaches of the far right. Thank you, sirs.
-
Two points.
Why was Clinton's count so high in a time of peace?
And I don't think the right has a monopoly on misused stats.
The Lancet Report is a good example of Soros-gaugery
-
Perspective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_2_deaths#Total_Human_Losses)
Just one problem with your Wiki perspective "facts"....we are not in WW3, Sirs.
-
<<And I don't think the right has a monopoly on misused stats.
<<The Lancet Report is a good example of Soros-gaugery>>
That you had to go outside the borders of the U.S.A. to find what YOU consider to be an example of left-wing misuse of stats speaks volumes. It's an aberration. Meanwhile, in the U.S.A. itself, you have countless examples of the right-wing Big Lie - - Iraq was a real threat, Clinton's military casualties outnumbered G.W. Bush's, John Kerry never earned his medals, Jessica Lynch was a hero, all just for starters.
-
That you had to go outside the borders of the U.S.A. to find what YOU consider to be an example of left-wing misuse of stats speaks volumes.
Last i heard Johns Hopkins was in the USA.
-
Last I heard, the Lancet was still a British medical journal. Anyway, what was wrong with the Lancet's figures? I don't concede that they DID manipulate the stats.
-
Last I heard, the Lancet was still a British medical journal. Anyway, what was wrong with the Lancet's figures? I don't concede that they DID manipulate the stats.
Would you concede such if their figures for casualtys were much larger that the total population?
-
Perspective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_2_deaths#Total_Human_Losses)
Just one problem with your Wiki perspective "facts"....we are not in WW3, Sirs.
Never said we were. If we were, our #'s would be exponentially higher. Fact remains, the amount of deaths in this war is a mere fraction of any other war. And for you to be trying to lay some comparision between Bush and Clinton is alittle disengenous. I would EXPECT more deaths under Bush, because we're currently at war, when we weren't under Clinton. Which begs the question that Bt asked, how did Clinton still managed to rack up so many military deaths, during his non-war tenure??
-
Perspective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_2_deaths#Total_Human_Losses)
Just one problem with your Wiki perspective "facts"....we are not in WW3, Sirs.
Never said we were. If we were, our #'s would be exponentially higher. Fact remains, the amount of deaths in this war is a mere fraction of any other war. And for you to be trying to lay some comparision between Bush and Clinton is alittle disengenous. I would EXPECT more deaths under Bush, because we're currently at war, when we weren't under Clinton. Which begs the question that Bt asked, how did Clinton still managed to rack up so many military deaths, during his non-war tenure??
Perspective is one thing.....not hitting the war mark is clearly another.
-
What?? Is this another nuance thing?
-
What?? Is this another nuance thing?
LOL