Bush and death

No name calling. No angry tirade. There are no words.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

This thread came up odd in preview (because it doesn’t show quoted stuff). It just said:

I thought, what an odd pitting. When he meant “no words”, he had a no-words bulleted list.

You’re going to have to use some words if you want to make your point.

:rolleyes:

Don’t you have anything better to do with your time? It must be exhausting to hate someone so much. To pour all this time and effort into something, when you are having no effect whatsoever.

I feel sorry for you.

From the second linked article:

This comes as somewhat of a surprise to me considering my impression that coalition forces in general try and focus their efforts on surgical strikes against insurgent cells while at the same time insurgents randomly attack the general populace with car bombs, etc.

That makes us even.
Liberal, they have one thing in common.

Pardon me while I indulge in a fit of unseemly giggles.

From your first cite:

So, he bases his conclusion on a sample size of sixteen states out of fifty, none of which have the largest number of women of child bearing age. Your source mentions:

I find his “analysis” somewhat less than compelling. Especially since the person you cite does not seem to realize who was President during 1999 and 2000.

The first is possible. The second is problematic.

If it is this Stassen, you will note that he has no advanced degrees in statistical analysis.

But you say you have no words. Allow me to suggest a few.

“Moronic”, “ridiculous”, “half-baked, half-witted, and half-assed attempts at pseudo-intellectual raving by the dolts of the left” - see if any of those work for you.

Regards,
Shodan

Only for case 1. Case 2 is firmly bellum, ergo hoc.

Bush may not be very good at stopping abortion, but he’s apparently even more of a failure when it comes to preventing cloning.

Shodan, is there any criticism of Bush and his policies that you do not dismiss a priori? You never seem to debate the merits of the issue, just to dismiss every single anti-Bush post as if the very notion of the president being in error is just too ludicrous to contemplate.

Is there, in truth, no legitimate way to indicate that Bush is fallible?

Why DO federal reports end in 2000 anyway?

And how about this: George Bush touts his pro-life stance as a reason we should re-elect him. What evidence can he or his supporters present to demonstrate his success in combatting abortion? How successful has his abstinence-only focus been in reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies? How successful have his economic and social programs been in convincing expectant mothers that they will be able to support children? What has he gotten accomplished in terms of making abortion harder to get and less common?

If it makes you feel better about your guy…

Did you giggle about the 100,000 Iraqis too? 'Cause you can call me more names if you’d like.

Only one thing? I doubt it. Unless you can show a causal relationship, showing a correlating relationship is absolutely meaningless. Absolutely.

FWIW Shodan, I am trained in statistical analysis, but I have no advanced degree in it.

I am also trained in systems administration, library systems management, accounting, and homebrewing. I don’t have advanced degrees in those things either.

I’m not sure that’s a very sound argument.

What’s so strange about that?

No, just you.

gobear - I didn’t dismiss it a priori. I even read the cite, and picked it apart to the extent my interest lasted. Which, I grant you, wasn’t far. lieu picked up on something else that makes this “analysis” suspect as well.

Sure there is. But this ain’t it. Neither is 90% of the rest of the bullshit you people sling around so freely.

You’re too used to preaching to the choir. Your positions are not really as unassailable as you have led yourselves to believe by patting each other on the back and flaming anyone who dares to dissent from the “Bush is the Great Satan” meme which is all that most political threads ever express.

I know it would be more comforting if you could believe that anyone who disagrees with you has a closed mind. But that isn’t true, and screaming doesn’t make it true.

Sometimes you’re right. Sometimes I’m right. Most of the time, it cannot be established who is right. The Presidency of George Bush is one of those "most of the time"s.

This thread is horseshit, no better than any of the crap Reeder or the rest of the mindless primitives infesting the Democratic party and the Kerry campaign would pull out of their ass. The notion that you apparently thought I should find it compelling says volumes more about you than about me.

Most politics is bullshit. Most of the politics on the SDMB is leftist. Therefore, most of the politics on the SDMB is leftist bullshit.

Like this.

Regards,
Shodan

Equipose, please stop making me agree with Shodan.

For that matter, please just stop.

And also why any Supreme Court nominees would have any affect, seeing as 7 of the 9 current justices were Republican appointees.

No.