Additionally, Heritage has this little habit of saying they got information from a real source, and then the numbers turn out to be magically changed in their reports from the numbers given to them from whatever organization. This practice is also knows as willful deception or LYING OUT YOUR ASS.
Do you have an example of this? If it's a habit, there should be numerous examples.
Additionally, Heritage has this little habit of saying they got information from a real source, and then the numbers turn out to be magically changed in their reports from the numbers given to them from whatever organization. This practice is also knows as willful deception or LYING OUT YOUR ASS.
Do you have an example of this? If it's a habit, there should be numerous examples.
Additionally, Heritage has this little habit of saying they got information from a real source, and then the numbers turn out to be magically changed in their reports from the numbers given to them from whatever organization. This practice is also knows as willful deception or LYING OUT YOUR ASS.
Do you have an example of this? If it's a habit, there should be numerous examples.
And again,and again,and again. See, the thing about spewing bile and lies all over the internet and the media is that you can't go back and erase shit to try and cover your lying ass.
I took a look at the articles cited. In the order they were posted: 1) This did not involve "magically changing" numbers, and thus does not support MacRoss' contention. 2) Defintely disturbing. The Heritage Foundation was open, though, as to their process and the way in which data was used. They didn't "magically change" numbers. They just interpreted the data in a way that benefited them and might have been outside of normal practice. Their transparency, though, strongly suggests that there was no itent to "change" any underlying data. So this does not prove MacRoss' contention. Close, but no cigar. 3) Again, no "magically changing" numbers. Just an argument as to how the numbers should be interpreted. Specifically, what standard should be used. Spending on its own or spedning as a percentage of GDP. This does not prove MacRoss's contention in the slightest. 4) Once again, no contention that numbers were "magically changed." Just a contention that the interpretation is incorrect. There is no evidence at all in this blog post, just unfounded assertions that the Heritage Foundation's contention is "a load of dingos' kidneys". This blog post seems to be confusing causation with correlation - big time. The Heritage Foundation is saying that the carbon emission trading scheme will cost the average American $1,500 and reduce carbon emissions by 1.8%. The blog poster then says that an American could spend $1,500 on projects that reduce their carbon emissions by 1.8%. (insulation, etc.) How this is related, I do not know. It is likelt that I am missing something, but the blog post is so poorly written that I don't see the connection. Further, there is a broken link to the report the poster is criticizing, so it is impossible to tell if the criticism is valid. In any event, this does not involve "magically changing" numbers, and thus does not prove MacRoss' contention. 5) Once again, no evidence at all of "matgically changing numbers." This does not prove MacRoss' contention. 6) Same as above.
I will also point out that the blog posts cited are just the type of evidence that are routinely criticized by those who relied upon them in this instance. I have always said that we should not criticize the source, and that we should show why the source is wrong. I have done that here. (Note: The sources may be correct as to an assertion other than the original MacRoss assertion that numbers are "magically changed.") I did want to, however, point out the hypocrisy of source material on this forum.
My argument was that these sources did not show that numbers were "magically changed." I analyzed the blog posts to demonstrate that they did not provide evidence, even if everything in the blog post was true, of MacRoss' contention.
This was MacRoss' contention: "... the numbers turn out to be magically changed in their reports from the numbers given to them from whatever organization." I asked if she had evidence of this. She and you cited the blog posts in question.
Not a single blog post cited demonstrated "magically changing" numbers. There is a clear concern as to how data is interpreted, however, the blog posts cited show that the Heritage Foundation is transparent even when engaging in questionable interpretation.
I didn't say: "These are a bunch of wacky blog posts. Epic fail."
So, yes. I showed something. And I didn't attack MacRoss. And I didn't just attack the source itself absent analysis of the content. I hope others here follow my lead. It makes for much more civil discussion here.
So noone wanted to talk about how Obama is getting rid of hundreds if not thousands of lobbyists from the advisory panels? ;-p
No. No one could find an article from the Heritage Foundation or Der Spiegel that said that he was moving the goalposts, that he was hypocritical, that any predictions were coming true, that he was caustic, or that oculd be summed up by "woops".
Yea, I'm nervous about this move, but in the end I've always said that we need to finish the job in Afghanistan especially since we dropped the ball. Well if it works the Miltary deserves a lot of credit :-p
Afghanistan though is as the daily show puts it "The final level" of a empire :-p
I'm still not clear on what we're trying to accomplish in Afghanistan. Its such a quagmire, every solution I think of has serious flaws attached to it.
No. No one could find an article from the Heritage Foundation orDer Spiegelthat said that he was moving the goalposts, that he was hypocritical, that any predictions were coming true, that he was caustic, or that oculd be summed up by "woops".
Is this tone really necessary? Try to be more civil and refrain from trolling. This forum is a great place when people act maturely and engage in substantive discussion. Why detract from something great?
Just as nobody spoke about Obama's trip to Asia, nobody spoke about getting rid of lobbyists. I suspect that nobody commented on the lobbyists because this decision was universally praised. There was no geniune controversy.
The situation for US troops in Afghanistan is horrible right now. To support the troops that are there, we need to do one of two things:
Get them all the hell out of there, OR
Send them some frickin' help.
Since it's clearly not an option to just drop everything and leave for various reasons (foreign policy, national security, social responsibility, etc), the logical choice is to send more troops over. I dislike that more people will have to be deployed, but if we are going to have a troop presence in Afghanistan, I would prefer it to be large enough to take care of itself.
I would love for Obama to give a concrete definition for "win", "finish" or "victory" during tonight's speech. I'd like a specific statement as to what condition(s) will result in our withdrawal. The word is that Obama's plan is to transfer authority to the Afghans. That is a good goal, but somewhat broad. I'd like to see a specific plan of action with enumerated criteria for progress. After all, a surge doesn't always work over the long term. You know that Obama is out on a limb when even Olbermann has turned against him.
I wonder if the Nobel prize committee is having any regrets right now? There was speculation that the award was given in the hope that it would influence Obama subsequent to the award.
I would love for Obama to give a concrete definition for "win", "finish" or "victory" during tonight's speech. I'd like a specific statement as to what condition(s) will result in our withdrawal. The word is that Obama's plan is to transfer authority to the Afghans. That is a good goal, but somewhat broad.
I agree. I'm not sure what the Administration's "pull-out" conditions are for Afghanistan, and it'd be really nice to know.
I would love for Obama to give a concrete definition for "win", "finish" or "victory" during tonight's speech. I'd like a specific statement as to what condition(s) will result in our withdrawal. The word is that Obama's plan is to transfer authority to the Afghans. That is a good goal, but somewhat broad.
I agree. I'm not sure what the Administration's "pull-out" conditions are for Afghanistan, and it'd be really nice to know.
I would also very much like to know what those goalposts are. Not that it would grossly affect my life. If the information is on a need-to-know basis, I doubt very much that any of us actually need to know. I could see an argument for security concerns if they give too many details about what they want to achieve. Sadly, if they release the conditions then there will probably be people working directly to make sure those things don't happen.
I would also very much like to know what those goalposts are.
Goalposts are meant to be moved.
1. Sure, after the game is over. 2. I expect my country's leader to be able to adapt to new information as it becomes available, which may involve changing a plan. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I think there is something wrong if new information becomes available and the leader REFUSES to change the plan despite evidence that he should.
So why didn't you take Bush to task over the same thing a while back, if Obama should be ashamed?
Because many "moderates" in this country are really conservative republicans who are too cowardly and hypocritical to say what they really believe. So, they'll say that they're moderates and that they have problems with both parties but, oddly enough, the only party they actually criticize is the Democratic Party.
You can see that at work here with the people who call themselves moderates. If you look back, you'll find little or no criticism of the GWB administration from them. Actually, you'll find them defending GWB more often than not. However, now that we have a Democratic administration, you see nearly daily critcism from them. Being from a foreign land, you might think a moderate would have equal amounts of criticism for both parties, but that's just not the way it works.
I do take Bush to task. Why would you think I wouldn't? The fact that no landmines were used during the Bush years is all the more reason why Bush and/or Obama should have signed the treaty. The reason I posted this is because I had higher expectations for Obama.
However, attacking the messenger detracts from the civility here, and adds absolutely nothing of substance. Bringing Bush into this is at best a distraction. Not a single person has addressed the underlying issue, which makes for a lot of white noise. Certain people on this forum seem to provide the most white noise, and I hope that they will join me in trying to post substantive information rather than personal attacks. I just don't understand why certain people are so determined to detract from the high quality of discussion here. Joe, I'll keep track of how many times I've had to ask you to stay on topic, provide a substantive response and not make things personal. This is request number two in as many days, so we'll officially start the count at 2.
I'd be happy to discuss why you think Obama was justified, but messages that do not address the substantive issue, and are a personal attack, get us absolutely nowhere.
And whether or not Bush did the same thing does not make what Obama did right. This is as basic a concept as you can get.
Obama was supposed to be about change, remember? Or have the goalposts been moved?
So just so we stay on topic - do you, or do you not, support Obama's decision?
Yes, it seems like the goalposts have been moved. Many things that republican administrations did with no complaints or criticism are now being met with daily complaints and criticism. Goalposts. Moved.
Just as an aside, I'll bet if a person googled the phrase "moving the goalposts", this forum would be one of the top hits. It must be difficult to have such a limited vocabulary requiring nearly constant resort to catch phrases.
Joe, do you agree or disagree with Obama's refusal to sign the treaty? If you disagree, then we shouldn't waste the forum's time arguing about matters that are not substantive.
es, it seems like the goalposts have been moved. Many things that republican administrations did with no complaints or criticism are now being met with daily complaints and criticism. Goalposts. Moved.
I voted for Obama because I thought he would be different than Bush. Certain things were expected of the Republicans. They weren't expected of Obama.
Actually, the linked article doesn't say anything about any particular action or ommission by Obama. The article does say that the Pentagon wants to retain the option to use mines. The Pentagon. I'm pretty confident that the Pentagin knows more about land mine use than what I know from reading the latest Obama-criticism article. The article also says that the U.S. has not used mines since 1990s.
It's just more "white noise" from people looking for any excuse to criticize Obama. Another day, another Obama criticism.
You can attack me personally, but I will never support an instrument of war that has had such an horrific impact on innocent civilians, many of whom are children. Never have, never will.
Joe, do you agree or disagree with Obama's refusal to sign the treaty? If you disagree, then we shouldn't waste the forum's time arguing about matters that are not substantive.
Umm . . . the articles you linked to say that (1) the U.S. has not used land mines since 1991 and (2) the decision whether or not to sign the treaty is under review.
It's a little to early to jump on the Obama-criticism bandwagon on this issue. I guess this is what happens when you set your Google alerts to notify you on a second-by-second basis of any new Obama criticism.
Comments
1) This did not involve "magically changing" numbers, and thus does not support MacRoss' contention.
2) Defintely disturbing. The Heritage Foundation was open, though, as to their process and the way in which data was used. They didn't "magically change" numbers. They just interpreted the data in a way that benefited them and might have been outside of normal practice. Their transparency, though, strongly suggests that there was no itent to "change" any underlying data. So this does not prove MacRoss' contention. Close, but no cigar.
3) Again, no "magically changing" numbers. Just an argument as to how the numbers should be interpreted. Specifically, what standard should be used. Spending on its own or spedning as a percentage of GDP. This does not prove MacRoss's contention in the slightest.
4) Once again, no contention that numbers were "magically changed." Just a contention that the interpretation is incorrect. There is no evidence at all in this blog post, just unfounded assertions that the Heritage Foundation's contention is "a load of dingos' kidneys". This blog post seems to be confusing causation with correlation - big time. The Heritage Foundation is saying that the carbon emission trading scheme will cost the average American $1,500 and reduce carbon emissions by 1.8%. The blog poster then says that an American could spend $1,500 on projects that reduce their carbon emissions by 1.8%. (insulation, etc.) How this is related, I do not know. It is likelt that I am missing something, but the blog post is so poorly written that I don't see the connection. Further, there is a broken link to the report the poster is criticizing, so it is impossible to tell if the criticism is valid. In any event, this does not involve "magically changing" numbers, and thus does not prove MacRoss' contention.
5) Once again, no evidence at all of "matgically changing numbers." This does not prove MacRoss' contention.
6) Same as above.
I will also point out that the blog posts cited are just the type of evidence that are routinely criticized by those who relied upon them in this instance. I have always said that we should not criticize the source, and that we should show why the source is wrong. I have done that here. (Note: The sources may be correct as to an assertion other than the original MacRoss assertion that numbers are "magically changed.") I did want to, however, point out the hypocrisy of source material on this forum.
This was MacRoss' contention:
"... the numbers turn out to be magically changed in their reports from the numbers given to them from whatever organization."
I asked if she had evidence of this. She and you cited the blog posts in question.
Not a single blog post cited demonstrated "magically changing" numbers. There is a clear concern as to how data is interpreted, however, the blog posts cited show that the Heritage Foundation is transparent even when engaging in questionable interpretation.
I didn't say: "These are a bunch of wacky blog posts. Epic fail."
So, yes. I showed something. And I didn't attack MacRoss. And I didn't just attack the source itself absent analysis of the content. I hope others here follow my lead. It makes for much more civil discussion here.
Afghanistan though is as the daily show puts it "The final level" of a empire :-p
Just as nobody spoke about Obama's trip to Asia, nobody spoke about getting rid of lobbyists. I suspect that nobody commented on the lobbyists because this decision was universally praised. There was no geniune controversy.
- Get them all the hell out of there, OR
- Send them some frickin' help.
Since it's clearly not an option to just drop everything and leave for various reasons (foreign policy, national security, social responsibility, etc), the logical choice is to send more troops over. I dislike that more people will have to be deployed, but if we are going to have a troop presence in Afghanistan, I would prefer it to be large enough to take care of itself.I wonder if the Nobel prize committee is having any regrets right now? There was speculation that the award was given in the hope that it would influence Obama subsequent to the award.
2. I expect my country's leader to be able to adapt to new information as it becomes available, which may involve changing a plan. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I think there is something wrong if new information becomes available and the leader REFUSES to change the plan despite evidence that he should.
You can see that at work here with the people who call themselves moderates. If you look back, you'll find little or no criticism of the GWB administration from them. Actually, you'll find them defending GWB more often than not. However, now that we have a Democratic administration, you see nearly daily critcism from them. Being from a foreign land, you might think a moderate would have equal amounts of criticism for both parties, but that's just not the way it works.
However, attacking the messenger detracts from the civility here, and adds absolutely nothing of substance. Bringing Bush into this is at best a distraction. Not a single person has addressed the underlying issue, which makes for a lot of white noise. Certain people on this forum seem to provide the most white noise, and I hope that they will join me in trying to post substantive information rather than personal attacks. I just don't understand why certain people are so determined to detract from the high quality of discussion here. Joe, I'll keep track of how many times I've had to ask you to stay on topic, provide a substantive response and not make things personal. This is request number two in as many days, so we'll officially start the count at 2.
I'd be happy to discuss why you think Obama was justified, but messages that do not address the substantive issue, and are a personal attack, get us absolutely nowhere.
And whether or not Bush did the same thing does not make what Obama did right. This is as basic a concept as you can get.
Obama was supposed to be about change, remember? Or have the goalposts been moved?
So just so we stay on topic - do you, or do you not, support Obama's decision?
Just as an aside, I'll bet if a person googled the phrase "moving the goalposts", this forum would be one of the top hits. It must be difficult to have such a limited vocabulary requiring nearly constant resort to catch phrases.
I voted for him because of promises like this.
It's just more "white noise" from people looking for any excuse to criticize Obama. Another day, another Obama criticism.
Obama's administration actively decided to NOT sign the treaty. Since then, they have changed their story and said that the matter is under review. I'd love to know what needs to be reviewed. And if there is a review, I'd love to see some follow up on this issue.
You can attack me personally, but I will never support an instrument of war that has had such an horrific impact on innocent civilians, many of whom are children. Never have, never will.
It's a little to early to jump on the Obama-criticism bandwagon on this issue. I guess this is what happens when you set your Google alerts to notify you on a second-by-second basis of any new Obama criticism.