It's always humorous to hear the right complain that no good news ever gets reported from Iraq.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jan 3 2007, 02:05 PM) [snapback]370159[/snapback]</div>

No Wildkow, I simply typed psychojerm into google. That's hardly hunting. Part of my work involves research, so research to me is habit.

And again, why is deflection your only argument? My point was simple: a) Psychojerm has authentic iraq stories to tell and 2) he lessens his credibility by whipping up statistical confections.

So maybe some of us have trouble accepting "good news" from Iraq because we're simultaneously asked to swallow a load of bull**** along with it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Jan 3 2007, 11:52 AM) [snapback]370124[/snapback]</div>

yep, i'm a long time member of that forum. what does my comment about KBR pay have anything to do with this conversation? KBR was one of the lower paying companies from what I heard. i didn't work for KBR, but I did interact with many of their employees and got that same story from all of them.

first, the yahoo article said 16 thousand deaths just in 2006. now you're saying that there's only been 9000 deaths since 2003? you are definitely changing the story. if there's only been 9000 deaths for the entire war, which has been over 3 years now, then that's less than 3000 a year. so which is it? I took the yahoo number and assumed 30 deaths per instance, after all, the articles you keep quoting say 40 or 50 in an instance. so at 30 per instance, that's only 542 individual homicidal instances for the year.

Is there something you don't understand about that?

what would you rather we use. Yahoo's 16000 just in 2006 or now what you're saying about 9000 for the entire war? please let me know so we can continue...

again, you keep coming up with new ones, because now it's 9000 deaths over 3 years. so what statistic would you like to stick with?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(psychojerm @ Jan 3 2007, 10:09 AM) [snapback]370059[/snapback]</div>

Wait a minute, I thought you were in the Armed Forces...you were a contractor...? This adds an entirely new ingredient to the discussion.

I agree; if you did this for primary patriotic reasons, why didn't you enlist? This point is confusing to me.

------------------------------------

Also, regarding any comments about soldiers "in country" (I hope I'm not misusing this term) I'm NOT denegrating anyone, and I'm NOT really saying that soldiers are "Dumb Grunts."

At work, I'm a "dumb grunt" and I'll be the first to admit it; that's why I felt that it was okay to say that my supervisors don't ask me how to run the company, etc...

------------------------------------

Regarding the Bradley incident, actually I don't own a TV and do my best to insulate myself from the inflammatory images presented by both the proponents and opponents of the War. So, I'm sorry but I don't know to what you're referring. (guess I could YouTube it, but haven't yet.)

I'm not saying that I insulate myself from the *news* but by forcing myself to read, I only see *still images* which tend not to be such a distraction.

My take: it's worth listening to everyone with information to add, but it's also important to remember the context in which their experiences occurred.

-------------------------------------

I think the real problem is that there's a general perception (whether true or not) that the current Administration played a little fast and loose with the facts, and consequently a breach of trust occurred...and I (for one) find myself having difficulty placing faith in those whom I *do* wish to place my faith --- and alliegance --- behind.

After all, I've **always** said that once the election's over, we as citizens have the duty to 'reunite' and pull together behind whomever is in office. Unfortunately, it's this breach of trust that's making it frustrating for me as an individual...'cause now I feel like I'm supposed to question everything (when I don't necessarily want to!!)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Jan 3 2007, 10:13 AM) [snapback]370171[/snapback]</div>

I never put BS into my mouth, but the smell I can't avoid and it's odor is coming from your general direction.

Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jan 3 2007, 10:37 AM) [snapback]370189[/snapback]</div>

His second post in this thread stated that.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(psychojerm @ Jan 3 2007, 02:30 PM) [snapback]370184[/snapback]</div>

You are the one who changed the criteria of the argument by confecting some numbers and making the criteria be that all deaths were in multiple casualty incidents:
>>In Iraq your deaths were from warfare and bombs, with probably 30 people dying at each instance on average.<<

The 9496 dead since the beginning of the war is the actual estimate of the number killed ONLY in multiple casualty explosions. See http://www.brook.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

Sorry if I confused you in adapting to your criteria change, but I prefer to work with real numbers from citable sources rather than ones made up out of my head.

If the Heritage Foundation had a statistical index on Iraq, I would cite from it to please you. But they don't. So I cite from a center-left (Brookings) rather than center-right (Heritage). But the point is, they are numbers compiled by researchers. Not made up from my head.

The original numbers I cited before, trying to be conservative, all still stand.
US 290 mil pop ~16000 murders a year (source:FBI)
Iraq 26 mil pop ~16000 civilian deaths (source: your yahoo article)

Real numbers look like this (pretty sad for a county with a population of 26 million): http://www.brook.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Jan 3 2007, 10:51 AM) [snapback]370204[/snapback]</div>

He stated his sources.

Wildkow

Edited to remove questionable comments.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jan 3 2007, 03:06 PM) [snapback]370214[/snapback]</div>

He source was:
>> took the yahoo number and assumed 30 deaths per instance, after all, the articles you keep quoting say 40 or 50 in an instance.<<

So he assumed "30" deaths per instance in regard to newspaper reports, usually for Bagdhad only (those articles I "keep citing"), that tell of bodies being found all over Bagdhad. Individual bodies, shot execution style, often tortured with delightful things like power tools, dumped in various parts of Bagdhad, become "30 deaths per instance" for all deaths in Iraq. It's just not a valid assumption.

Basically, he has to play some statistical trickery on the numbers, based on invalid pretences in order to make them look good. I mean, what's so friggin hard to understand:
US 290 mil pop 16000 murders ( http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html )
Iraq 26 mil pop 16000 murders ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070102/ap_on_...raq_corrected_2 )

But Wildkow, the whole point is I'm not asking anyone to believe me. I link to the sources. Don't take my word for it. You can look it up yourself.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Jan 3 2007, 12:14 PM) [snapback]370134[/snapback]</div>

Never claimed to be a "battle hardened combat veteran." In fact, I don't wear a combat patch on my right sleeve as my colleagues from Iraq and Afghanistan do. Matters not. I'm just a regular guy who dresses funny at work.

As for monitoring PriusChat, that's exactly what I do. How else am I going to find out when the next Nav DVD release is available?

Dan

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dan-Wolfe @ Jan 3 2007, 02:32 PM) [snapback]370230[/snapback]</div>

Touché. It just that with your level of extensive DoD experience, one could surmise that your monitoring of PriusChat could be of a somewhat more nefarious nature, particularly the discussions on FHoP. It's hardly the forum to find about the next Nav DVD release.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Jan 3 2007, 03:06 PM) [snapback]370267[/snapback]</div>

Why is it that you think that DoD experience would necessarily breed nefarious activities? Then again, there exists some precedent on which to base such a conclusion, but prudence dictates that I limit my discussion on that matter. But I digress... (Who IS this Prudence, anyway?)

Hey, I am a public affairs guy and a finance officer. The absolute worst thing I have the power to do is talk bad about you while I screw up your military pay. If you're not getting paid by the Army, then you're free and clear.

I still might talk bad about you, though. It's my constitutional right!



Dan

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dan-Wolfe @ Jan 3 2007, 03:15 PM) [snapback]370277[/snapback]</div>

At the State Dept, there was what Cheney did to Joseph Wilson. In the DoD, the big one was Rumsfeld cutting Shinseki off at the knees. Then there's the data mining with the phone company records and requests for library records, all in the name of 'fighting terrorism'.

The bottom line is that the Bush Adm (and, by proxy, anyone who's a current member of it) has shown itself to be positively Nixonian in their vindictiveness and, with the Patriot Act, all the essential tools are available to go after their 'enemies'. FHoP, with all of the posters who show a decided left-wing slant to their statements, would be a fertile ground for listing and keeping track of those who would fall into that category.

OTOH, maybe it's just my old MI paranoia.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Jan 3 2007, 11:52 AM) [snapback]370124[/snapback]</div>

Psychojerm, you should feel proud... They've beaten the Jungle drums and all the extreme liberal batters are coming out to join in on the FUN.

Im really impressed that someone took the time to Google someone else's screen name.. :blink: to try and ruin their credibility on a massage board posting... WOW!!! :huh:

Hmmm whats the word Im looking for????

But again it never ceases to amaze me at what lengths the EXTREMISTS will go to try and discredit positive news & veiws.. I guess thats why they have Eeyore as their mascot.. :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Jan 3 2007, 10:13 AM) [snapback]370171[/snapback]</div>

And again, why is deflection your only argument?[/b][/quote]
For a moment, I thought that you wrote defecation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jan 3 2007, 03:33 PM) [snapback]370397[/snapback]</div>

LOL! :lol: So easily fooled!

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jan 3 2007, 10:08 AM) [snapback]370159[/snapback]</div>

This may be somewhat of a shock, but it appears Wildkow is a confirmed liberal. His "arguments" above are textbook examples of How Liberals Argue. With breathtaking brevity he's employed no fewer than 5 distinct methods of argument uniquely employed by liberals, something that takes considerable practice to accomplish in so small a space (evidence of Wildkow's considerable practice is often chest deep throughout Fred's):

#1: Attack Your Opponent

#2: Switch (or #8, Hijack) the Arguments

#4: Attack The Source

#9: Play the Hate

Wildkow, none of us had the least suspicion you were such a flagrant liberal!

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Jan 3 2007, 10:14 PM) [snapback]370448[/snapback]</div>

OMG, are you SERIOUS?

Please post if you are, please, PLEASE, PLEASE????

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jan 3 2007, 01:08 PM) [snapback]370159[/snapback]</div>

What an amazingly juvenile thing to post. I'm afraid I missed it the first time because I rarely pay attention or give any thought to anything this 'Wildkow' posts. I'm rather puzzled how anyone with a shred of dignity or self-respect could possibly defend something like that.

I must say, though, it certainly is in keeping with the third-grade mentality of many supporters of Bush and his failed Iraq endeavor. And I suppose it's nice to know that someone of such low intelligence can actually own and operate a vehicle as technically complex as a Prius (well, at least they have the ability to post animated emoticons on PriusChat).

However, I'm afraid Wildkow must now join Mystery Squid and dbermanmd on my 'ignore' list.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jan 3 2007, 09:13 PM) [snapback]370475[/snapback]</div>

GASP!

Say it isn't so :huh:

Again you will also find the extreme liberal leftoes like to twist non-liberals words around.
They will also redirect the conversation to reflect on negitivity towards homosexuals to incite gay members to react to your replies . You they will call you a homophob if you reply with a negitive comment.
,
If you would like to better arm yourselves and be inlightened ie (oh wow they just did that) then check out the two sites and it will prepare you to how their minds work .

Liberal "Rules" for Arguing :
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/columnist...i/article6.html

Or here,

More Liberal "Rules" for Arguing
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/columnist.../article24.html

Most of them will use the following rule #'s when trying to discredit you & the thread.:

#1: Attack Your Opponent

#3: Raise The Bar

#4: Attack The Source


#6: Reductio ad Absurdum

#7: Wear Hawk's Clothing

#9: Play the Hate

(Disclaimer) I have found that not all the liberals are that bad here, the conservitive & middle of the road so to speak really are not that bad here. The extremists are the ones to watch for (one will quickly see who they are)

 

If you're a journalist covering a PTA meeting and a suicide truck explodes and kills 60 people, just how much are you going to write about the PTA meeting?

The right is blaming the media for its failure in Iraq. Some right-wingers, including Bush, say that we could have won in Viet Nam if we hadn't cut and run. Has the right ever acknowledged that it might be wrong about something, anything?

The right is supposed to be about personal responsibility, but it seems that only applies to others. When right-wingers are shown to be just plain wrong about something, it's always someone else's fault.

The declarations of "slam-dunk", "cakewalk" and "pay for itself" were all wrong, but not one right-winger will have the courage to even mention it, much less apologize for misleading the nation.

Further, the wonderful tax cuts that pay for themselves -- analysis by CONSERVATIVE economists indicate that this is about 15% true... and about 85% SHORTFALL. I would not let such idiocy into an Assistant Manager spot at a McDonalds -- no one would -- but hey, it's running our country's economics.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sharkmeister @ Feb 27 2007, 04:41 AM) [snapback]397136[/snapback]</div>

John F. Kennedy?