… what?
Are you on any hallucinogenic drugs?
[Moderator Hat ON]
Ryan_Liam, don’t call people trolls, period.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
And guys, if you just want to swipe at each other, take it to the Pit.
This is a meaningless, bullshit statistic. You do not have a large enough sample to extropolate a significant mortality rate. Anyone who has ever taken a stat class knows that no statistically meaningful conclusion can be drawn from your sample size. You don’t have enough data to know what your normal distribution is. You have a huge margin of error and no confidence level. This is the second time I’ve explained this to you? Is it sinking in yet?
I’m not swiping, I’m trying to figure out what the hell he’s saying. He keeps putting words in my mouth, like saying I want to be President or that I think Republicans are retards. I have no idea where he is getting this information, since I haven’t said anything remotely resembling either of those remarks, at least in this thread.
All I see is someone trying to pick a fight with name-calling, which is more suited to a playground than a debate forum.
Well before this thread “dies out”, we may have differing opinions but let’s agree on one thing - only forty-two persons have been President.
(See posting #30)
Dio, while I’m in agreement with you that the 43 presidents (actually 42 individuals as wolf_meister points out) do not constitute a statistically valid sample set, it is not always true that 42 samples is insufficient. Sample sizes as small as 25 can be valid for experiments involving a sufficiently normal distribution (or even less for very uniform conditions).
E.g., suppose you were trying to test whether or not some trait was hereditary. 42 pairs of identical twins raised apart would likely be a very valid sample set.
I think Bush is politically brave. Regardless of the wisdom of his policies, I don’t think
he would alter them to pander to the electorate. Invading Iraq was politically brave, in that he risked little by not going in. He’s probably one of the more politically brave presidents we’ve had in a long time.
Hold on… are you implying the Clinton administration made that whole thing up? Why on earth would they do that? If they wanted to lob a few missiles at saddam, he provided plenty of opportunity to do so without Clinton MAKING UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH a bogus assasination story. And for all the endless attacks and investigations of Clinton, this would have been a doozy, yet they never brought it up.
Yeah, I hate those politicians who actually represent the will of the people…
pander<>represent. Apparently 60 million people thinks he represents the will of the people.
And they’d be pretty pissed if he stopped pandering to and/or representing them.
He’s not politically brave, he’s politically self-righteous and ignorant. He doesn’t do his political mechanisations out of bravery, he does them because he thinks that is how it should be. He views the opposition (in the US) as treacherous fiends.
There’s a difference between bravery and stupidity, and Bush stands a bit to the stupid side.
I understand that but the OP is trying to make a comparison to mortality rates drawn from samples of hundreds of thousands. The confidence level in a sample of 42, as compared to 100,000, is practically non-existent. It simply does not follow that 4/42 can be extropolated as the normal distribution for a sample of 100,000.
While I agree with you on the technical statistics, I think the point is moot; we can agree that serving as head of state brings with it a great deal of threat (and Bush put even greater threat on himself).
Unfortunately, the logic of calling Bush “brave” because of this means that you have to call every other head of state on the planet and all of the revolutionaries/terrorists “brave”. It is abusing the word “brave”.
Then , you could add into the mix head of states of other democratic countries, if you want a larger sample.
It’s quite obvious that a head of state has a way greater risk of being assassinated than the average Joe. Arguing about the size of the sample seems to me to be nitpicking
The OP wasn’t talking about “average Joes”, the OP was talking about soldiers in a major war. It is not at all “obvious” to me that a head of state as well-protected as current American presidents is at a greater risk of being killed than, say, a typical soldier in Vietnam. And I hardly think it’s “nitpicking” to question the statistical methods used when a statistical argument is being made to reach that conclusion.
I don’t think that’s been demonstrated since no one has provided any statistics for the sudden mortality rate of the “average joe.”
I also don’t think you can compare the relative security of different heads of state. Political situations and levels of personal security are too variable. The POTUS is arguably the single most protected human being on earth. I think it’s absurd to say that Bush is in more danger than a Marine in Fallujah right now. or even that he’s in more danger than me when I’m driving on the freeway.
No, they didn’t make it up. They did the same thing they did with the aspirin factory in Sudan, WMDs in Iraq and a host of other things. Take extremely iffy evidence, present it as irrefutable fact and act on it. When it becomes more and more apparent that your evidence has lots of holes in it, repeat original assertion more often until the heat blows off and nobody cares anymore.
I have to agree. I can’t remember hearing or reading of one assasination or attempt on the leaders of Canada, Britain ,France or Russia. (could that be due to liberal gun laws in America :D)
At the moment no. Bush hasn’t exposed his noggin to the general public since the campaign. But for the sake of “statistical” comparison I’d be very interested to find out when this operation is over , if the dead and wounded exceed 952. (based on the reported 10,000 US troops involved in the operation)
I tried to get figures on highway fatalities but failed. But given that most Americans use the nations highways, and assuming the American population currently at 300,000,000 we would expect well over 28 million fatalities over a four year period or 7 million highway deaths per year . I don’t think that is happening.
Look Dio, I’m not writing a science paper here. And after watching the opening scenes of the “Private Ryan” movie I certainly have no illusions about the immediate horror and stress that a combat soldier can face. I just don’t feel that the general public appreciates the sacrifices that American presidents and presidential contenders make and are prepared to make in order to serve their country.