When will Bush's presidency end?

Page 3 of 3 [ 47 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

benjimanbreeg
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,515

11 Jan 2008, 4:54 pm

Averick wrote:

Now, please.

UncleBeer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 683
Location: temporarily trapped in Holland

11 Jan 2008, 5:36 pm

Orwell wrote:

Would you like to refute the September 2007 study from ORB, completely independent of the Lancet? It wasn't right before an election, so you can't claim that bias.

Well, ORB (Opinion Business Research) didn't do the poll. In fact, none of ORB's employees have ever been anywhere near Iraq. They farmed the work out to IIACSS (Independent Institute for Administration & Civil Society Studies), who claim they had a 98% response rate during polling. Sorry; that's not even close to being credible.

Also, this statement from ORB themselves, indicating they'd mainly done their 'polling' only in heavily populated areas, where most casualties are likely to occur. It seems they freely admit to their own shabby polling methods:

Quote:

Iraq Casualties Poll Update

ORB to conduct additional interviews in rural Iraq.

We have received a lot of interest in the recent ‘casualties’ poll that we carried out in conjunction with our local partners in Iraq - IIACSS. Our survey was carried out throughout Iraq and looked at the incidence of civilian deaths since 2003 - together with Iraqi’s views on the displacement of people.

As with many other activities in Iraq polling has its own restraints and it is simply too dangerous for interviewers to operate in some areas. Meanwhile local authorities prevent interviewers from working in certain towns and districts. This means that we cannot gather opinion from the more volatile areas but, at the same time we have, so far, also limited coverage in rural districts. Both of these factors mean that any estimate of deaths will remain just that - an estimate.

While, for obvious reasons, we cannot boost our representation of people living in Iraq’s most violent areas we have decided - following feedback from readers of our poll - to conduct a more extensive survey of rural areas to see how this may impact on our estimate. We are in the process of conducting additional interviews in rural areas of Iraq. Once this data has been verified and merged with our current data set we will post it here on the ORB.

UncleBeer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 683
Location: temporarily trapped in Holland

11 Jan 2008, 5:41 pm

Orwell wrote:

It wasn't right before an election, so you can't claim that bias.

The Lancet's statistical methodology is so flawed that their flagrant and clumsy attempts to affect the US elections don't even need to be considered. It's just more mud on their faces.

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

11 Jan 2008, 6:20 pm

UncleBeer wrote:

Of course it's sheer coincidence that the Lancet releases these 'studies' just before US congressional elections (and the previous study just days before the US presidential election).

Yes, I think you are right about that. The Lancet has a review policy for various types of articles that they publish, and I think it is highly unlikely that all the doctors and research scientists that serve as editors and reviewers decided to band together to give special treatment to these articles for political reasons.

I really have a hard time listening to all this criticism of the Lancet, because the study was not performed by the Lancet - it was carried out by a team at Johns Hopkins University.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

11 Jan 2008, 7:11 pm

UncleBeer wrote:

Also, this statement from ORB themselves, indicating they'd mainly done their 'polling' only in heavily populated areas, where most casualties are likely to occur. It seems they freely admit to their own shabby polling methods:

Quote:

It seems to me that they are freely admitting to and attempting to address problems inherent in making good counts in such a situation such as Iraq. They haven't polled rural areas, but it also says they've avoided the most dangerous areas, so that could cause an undercount. Your attempted argument can be used just as easily in either direction and is therefore worthless. Obviously an exact count will never be made, as was never really made for Rwanda, or the Holocaust, or Darfur, but these are the best estimates we have, and are certainly better than listening to il duce make up numbers around 30,000 after which he mutters "more or less."

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
$Xfractor Card #351$

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

11 Jan 2008, 7:20 pm

Averick wrote:

Now, please.

agreed. i hope this is a lesson to all registerd voters that voting in a guy based on your religious views is never a good idea, didnt george say jesus was sitting on his shoulder and told him it was the right thing to do to invade iraq? :lol:

_________________
Winds of clarity. a universal understanding come and go, I've seen though the Darkness to understand the bounty of Light

benjimanbreeg
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,515

11 Jan 2008, 9:33 pm

richardbenson wrote:

Averick wrote:

Now, please.

Were they his exact words?

zendell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,174
Location: Austin, TX

12 Jan 2008, 1:36 am

Does anyone know why our troops are still in Iraq? Bush said we attacked to remove Saddam (which we did) and remove their WMDs (which they apparently didn't have). Yet the war continues. What exactly are our troops doing over there besides killing innocent Iraqis who are fighting for their freedom? There needs to be a damn good reason to justify the slaughtering of 650,000 to 1.2 million Iraqis.

zendell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,174
Location: Austin, TX

12 Jan 2008, 1:44 am

Bush Quotes:
"I've got God's shoulder to cry on. And I cry a lot. I do a lot of crying in this job. I'll bet I've shed more tears than you can count, as president." --George W. Bush, as quoted by author Robert Draper in Dead Certain http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

"At the end of the session, Bush reportedly told the group, “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.’’ :lol: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1172948/posts

UncleBeer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 683
Location: temporarily trapped in Holland

12 Jan 2008, 2:22 am

monty wrote:

UncleBeer wrote:

Of course it's sheer coincidence that the Lancet releases these 'studies' just before US congressional elections (and the previous study just days before the US presidential election).

Les Roberts, epidemiologist, sometimes-political candidate, and lead author of the 2004 Lancet / Johns Hopkins study says it best:

Quote:

"I emailed it in on Sept. 30 under the condition that it came out before the election. My motive in doing that was not to skew the election. My motive was that if this came out during the campaign, both candidates would be forced to pledge to protect civilian lives in Iraq. I was opposed to the war and I still think that the war was a bad idea, but I think that our science has transcended our perspectives."

So for you to say there was no political motive in the timing of the story's release is obviously not true.

UncleBeer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 683
Location: temporarily trapped in Holland

12 Jan 2008, 2:32 am

Orwell wrote:

They haven't polled rural areas, but it also says they've avoided the most dangerous areas

What they're tacitly admitting is that they've published a wildly inaccurate guess. Hardly good or credible statistics.

They also freely admit to falling victim to a statistical flaw known as "Main Street bias":

Quote:

...the sampling methods used "will result in an over-estimation of the death toll in Iraq" because "by sampling only cross streets which are more accessible, you get an over-estimation of deaths."

These "scientists" do a great disservice to science when they cook their numbers to flog their political ideologies.

MissPickwickian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,044
Location: Tennessee

12 Jan 2008, 6:51 am

Bush leave when he's supposed to. It was his creepy cabinet of crazies I was worried about until almost all of them resigned.

_________________
Powered by quotes since 7/25/10

richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
$Xfractor Card #351$

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

12 Jan 2008, 9:38 am

zendell wrote:

Bush Quotes:
“I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.’’

thats ubelievable, and frightening

_________________
Winds of clarity. a universal understanding come and go, I've seen though the Darkness to understand the bounty of Light

The_Q
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 193
Location: The Continuum

12 Jan 2008, 9:38 am

ja wrote:

President Bush is the best president you are likely to see in for a long, long time.

My opinion of U.S. politicians (not Americans themselves) is pretty low, but c'mon!

_________________
Q: "Humans are such commonplace little creatures."
--"Deja Q"

richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
$Xfractor Card #351$

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

12 Jan 2008, 9:40 am

yeah that guy obviously doesnt know what hes talking about..

_________________
Winds of clarity. a universal understanding come and go, I've seen though the Darkness to understand the bounty of Light

Page 3 of 3 [ 47 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3

Jump to:

When will Bush's presidency end? Post Reply New Topic

When will Bush's presidency end?