Say Anything Blog

How much Soros money was behind this survey, one wonders.

Ken McCrackhead speaks his words of wisdom on The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.  (gag)

But alas, perhaps you are onto something after all, Rob and Ken.  I can see much more clearly now, after this powerful argument, why sometimes you feel its you two and your gaggle of friends against the world and all its realities.

Has anyone actually died as a result of the war, or did the liberal media just make it all up? Could it be possible that all the violence we have seen on TV is just a movie? It’s a question that only the almighty doobie can answer.

How much Soros money was behind this survey, one wonders.

Which one of your Masters turned Soros into such a boogie man for you? Rush? O’Reilly? Savage?

Actually, it wasn’t anyone who turned Soros into a boogieman besides Soros himself.  When you see his name & dollars behind every crazy study, thinking minds start to see and act on the pattern to realize that Soros has a reverse Midas touch on every issue he addresses. 

And I was thinking hippos flinging their dung, not monkeys.

You leftists are going to look dumber than usual if Soros has any financial backing of the “survey.” But, you guys are usually eager to try and digest whatever your handlers feed you, so I’m sure you’re buying this report lock, stock, and barrel. Most people would question a national survey that only included 2,414 people, and went on to extrapolate 1,000,000 deaths from those surveyed based on a 1997 census and reported deaths in household. But, that’s just most people.

I know what’ll make you guys feel better: let’s pretend that one billion people have died because of the war. There, now you can go to your Code Pink/anti-war rallies and log onto Kos feeling all smug with the knowledge that your country is as bad as you think it is.

And Jack must be a plant signed in just for stupidity - really, you want to talk about people having a boogeyman, I got one word for ya: Rove.

""That’s the problem with you lefties, you’re not willing to get your hands dirty. I’d suggest you roll up your sleeves.”

-Jack Bauer

Has anyone actually died as a result of the war, or did the liberal media just make it all up?

Well of course people have died as a result of the war, but here’s a question for you: Who do those deaths get attributed to?  American forces, or the terrorists?

Ask yourself what would happen if all American forces pulled out of Iraq right now.  Would the fighting and death stop, or would the extremists continue their push for domination killing all that get in their way or fail to adhere to their perverted version of Islam?

Now ask yourself what would happen if the terrorists laid down their arms.  Peace would break out, of course, because Americans aren’t the aggressors in Iraq.  We’re the people trying to defend a fledgling democracy there.

So when someone dies in violence in Iraq, the blood isn’t on our hands.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Hoss:

All you offer is name-calling and lies.

Yup, you’re a conservative alright!

Interestingly, when statisticians want to get an idea of violent deaths (to discredit the war) in Iraq, they sample such small groups, whilst when another group wants to get an idea of living conditions (to assess the humanitarian need) they sample a much larger group.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

You leftists are going to look dumber than usual if Soros has any financial backing of the “survey.” But, you guys are usually eager to try and digest whatever your handlers feed you,

It’s not that we cant agree with the possibility the poll could have been done better.  There really no logical argument against the science that was put behind the poll, only the vast left wing conspiracy theory argument was used to explain away the poll and apparently every other negative fact of the war.

The paranoia that exists on your side. that causes you to stop being realistic, is far worse than any acceptance lefties have of the news or coverage of the Iraq war.

Ask yourself what would happen if all American forces pulled out of Iraq right now.  Would the fighting and death stop, or would the extremists continue their push for domination killing all that get in their way or fail to adhere to their perverted version of Islam?

So when someone dies in violence in Iraq, the blood isn’t on our hands.

If you truly believe that, then surely you must admit the war has exacerbated the spread of radical Islam to places it once did not exist?  Because it seems to me that the result of our invasion was instability and an opportunity to radical Islam to take control of state, where it once never had that opportunity.  That instability is causing all of these deaths and opened up the possibility of another terrorist state coming to rise.

Unwittingly, you single handedly proved why Bush was an idiot for going into Iraq and also that Obama was right to say this was a stupid war and we should have instead gone to fight in the areas where radical Islam exists and flourishes before we invaded a country that allowed it to spread there.

Of course this is what happens when a righty is caught off guard.  They tell the truth and step outside of their right wing talking points that protect their stupid war and president.

Hannitized, are you really going to try and pitch us on the idea that radical Islam wasn’t in Iraq prior to our invasion?  That Saddam Hussein really wasn’t supporting international Islamic jihadists?  That he wasn’t providing aid and succor to terrorists?

Because that’s just cold, hard fact.

In Iraq we’re fighting to create a little pocket of freedom and representative government in a region full of tyranny.  That’s a noble goal.

And the war in Iraq hasn’t contributed to the spread of extremist Islam, it’s created a flytrap that has attracted jihadists from all over the world to Iraq so that they can kill themselves fighting out troops.

It was a good move, if not perfectly executed.  Not that things like “logic” and “reason” are going to convince you of much of anything.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Radical Islam didn’t exist in Iraq before American forces showed up.

Nevermind the fact that the country was headed up by a dictator who once wrote the entire Koran using his own blood.

Saddam was “secular”.

This is all according to lefties. Those are the same people who yell out “Christian fascists!” to anybody who so much as mentions God. “But Saddam was secular!”, they’ll say.

That upside down world that the “reality based community” lives in knows no bounds. America = assume the worst. Saddam = every benefit of the doubt.

*cue the insults against the “idiot” Bush and the “stupid” war. After all, Saddam was secular!

Hannitized, are you really going to try and pitch us on the idea that radical Islam wasn’t in Iraq prior to our invasion?  That Saddam Hussein really wasn’t supporting international Islamic jihadists?  That he wasn’t providing aid and succor to terrorists?

What I am telling you is that Al Qaeda or any bastard child of its organization was not operating in Iraq, and if it was it was, it was doing so in the same way they operated or operate in our country, without the governments consent.

The mass invasion of the radicals we were fighting simply weren’t there except for a slight few or a single individual who might have sought out refuge from our successful attack on their territory and on the Taliban in Afghanistan. 

You can spin all you like about Saddams support for the Palestinian terror groups that are committed to fighting the Israelis, but that is not who or what we are fighting today.

And I am sure those facts are something you wish to avoid in order to keep some form of pride for your presidents mistakes.

In Iraq we’re fighting to create a little pocket of freedom and representative government in a region full of tyranny.  That’s a noble goal.

Certainly it’s noble, if it works.  But now isnt the time to be starting noble wars, its time to fight the people who are trying to kill us and who are spreading their ideology across the ME.  But I know you probably would like to forget that little fact that we are fighting a true enemy so that you can pat yourself on the back for your mistakes and in the process rename your blunder as something as noble to make up for it.

Radical Islam didn’t exist in Iraq before American forces showed up.

snip..

Saddam was “secular”.

This is all according to lefties.

Idiot.  It’s not just the “lefties” its also the independent 9/11 commission who proved your lies aren’t worth the paper they were written on.

What you do is spin the truth in a way that attributes a reality to your political opponent in order to dismiss its validity, all the while ignoring those responsible parties who also say the same thing so that you can continue to spread your propaganda and lies to the blind sheep who follow you.

Pathetic.  But keep it up Lickingshoes, your showing your true colors.

Saddam was “secular”.

This is all according to lefties.

Don’t disagree with them or they’ll get really angry and call you names. They miss Saddam and didn’t think that he was one of our “real enemies”.

Everybody remember the first Lancet “study” that gave us a 95% CI 8000-194000 number? That meant that they were 95% sure that the deaths were somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000. They picked the middle and we heard “100,000 dead” from the “reality based community”.

This “study” with the incredibly small sample size (excellent point here!) is more of the same. Expect the same people who bought into Jamie Gorelick’s “independent” 9/11 Commission to mindlessly buy right into this one.

Blind sheep indeed. They are America’s enemies. Ever notice that the left spends so much time defending Saddam’s Iraq while at the same time attributing all manner of evil things to America’s President? What’s that about? Think they might be enemies of America? No! Ya think?

Yes, Hannitized, Saddam was completely secular and no hazard to anyone, which is why he provided shelter to Islamist Abu Nidal for decades, and also provided aid and comfort to the terrorists trying to drive Israel into the sea.  It also explains his purges and systematic oppression of Kurds and the Shi’a majority in his country, and his disastrous invasions of Iran and Kuwait, and threats against the Saudis.

And sure, there are no credible arguments against statistical sampling methodology, which is why nobody ever even bothers to perform peer review with such studies, and absolutely nobody ever bothers to compare the results of such studies with others.  It would be such a waste of time.

/sarcasm off.

Bike Bubba - that’s a little bit too much truth for your intended recipient.

Expect to be called a “blind sheep” who is just spreading “propaganda”. Don’t expect any kind of thoughtful and factual rebuttal. He doesn’t have it in him.

And regarding this methodology; again, there are no credible arguments against it, which is why our census is conducted by an actual head count.

OK, here’s some statistical reality from a Six Sigma trained engineer; when you use anything less than the full sample, you inherently introduce biases in sampling.  You also widen the likely distribution of results from that which you’d obtain with the full sample. 

Sometimes sampling is necessary.  You can’t always do a full survey for everything you want to measure.  However, to pretend that there are no objections to sampling methodology is to expose yourself as completely uneducated in statistics.

BTW, today, another 3,000 or so helpless souls will be aborted in this country alone for purely selfish reasons. Think about that as you watch the left and their newfound respect for human life.

BTW, today, another 3,000 or so helpless souls will be aborted in this country alone for purely selfish reasons. Think about that as you watch the left and their newfound respect for human life.

Idiot.  I don’t support abortion for selfish reasons.  Further, I wouldn’t mind if they reversed Roe vs. Wade..but thanks for being the King of move the goal posts and change the subject, when you are loosing and argument.

Worse, you calculate when and where you care about innocent life.  You don’t care about the innocent life that was loss for fighting the wrong war at the wrong time.  If you are going to pretend to be principled at least be consistent when you do it, Lickingshoes!

You are creating a long list of reasons why dealing with Iraq is/was important, all while neglecting to speak to the fact that it was the absolute wrong time to do it.

H,

For someone who spent so much pointless time and effort last evening trying vainly to paint an opponent’s comments as “childish” and “insulting” your predictably tedious reliance on the word “Idiot” really is pretty amusing.

Thanks for the chuckles!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Saddam was completely secular and no hazard to anyone, which is why he provided shelter to Islamist Abu Nidal for decades, and also provided aid and comfort to the terrorists trying to drive Israel into the sea.

Blah, blah, blah, blah.  You mention everything under the sun, except about how it helps us deal with Al Qaeda or how preventing WMDs from getting in their hands was important.

Anybody who listened to any SOTU address the president gave prior to the invasion of Iraq knows that this newly created line from the right is BS.  Because if Clinton or any Lib argued those points as a justification to invade Iraq they would attack it relentlessly from every angle.  Pathetic.

Oh and Lickingshoes.  The only fact that is being avoided is the fact that you ignore the 9/11 commission disputes your lies.

Thanks Bat.  I appreciate the stalkish nature in your response to my comments.  But the key to making Hypocrisy stick is you have to actually pretend to hold the principles you criticize.  I never have, nor will I ever claim that I dont use chastise people by name-calling.  It was you who pretended that you were above that behavior.  THAT was the reason for calling you out as a hypocrite.

What you are doing, like the idiot you are, is trying to hold me to a set of standards I don’t have.  Lickingshoes deserves what he gets because he has no problem throwing insults in my direction.  So why should I treat him any differently?

Because if Clinton or any Lib argued those points as a justification to invade Iraq they would attack it relentlessly from every angle.

Absolutely false.  If Clinton had ever taken action against all the terrorism during the Nineties, the Republicans would have united behind him in that effort.  Conservatives spent the Nineties watching terrorist attack after terrorist attack, watching Al Qaeda grow in power and influence, and wondering why Clinton failed to act against any of it.
It’s the lefties who refuse to unite against the threats to our country, while playing partisan politics to the hilt.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Actually, it wasn’t anyone who turned Soros into a boogieman besides Soros himself.

Not to mention that Soros himself has advocated world socialism.  For the uninformed, that means he is in opposition to the Founding Principles of the United States.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

What you are doing, like the idiot you are, is trying to hold me to a set of standards I don’t have.

H,

Kudos!  This is the first cogent, brutally honest thing you’ve said!  My congratulations.  I will gladly accept yet one more childish, small-minded and altogether meaningless insult in exchange for your acknowledging your own lack of standards.

And you did it in one sentence, and without the need to make up words as you went along (stalkish?).  Bravo!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Absolutely false.  If Clinton had ever taken action against all the terrorism during the Nineties, the Republicans would have united behind him in that effort.

The war against terrorism was really warming up in the late 90’s including daily airstrikes in Iraq, Sudan and daily airstrikes in Iraq.  In retrospect, he didn’t go nearly far enough but hindsight is much better than 20/20. 
We all changed on 9/11 some of us figured we should hide our heads deeper so our neighbor takes it first.  Others go house to house killing terrorists.  (Thanks Scott, welcome home.)

In retrospect, he didn’t go nearly far enough…

Maybe because he was really only trying to divert attention from his domestic scandals, instead of really going after the terrorists.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Notice that “Hannitized” thinks he is treating me like I treat him.

Funny that. Today is the first time I’ve read his drivel since the day he showed up. I don’t and haven’t responded to the guy, all the while he spends his time calling me names.

The guy is a comedian. He’s doing ironic humor here.

Lickingshoes deserves what he gets because he has no problem throwing insults in my direction.  So why should I treat him any differently?

I’ll wait for “Hannitized” to back up this claim.

Actually,...I won’t. What’s the point? He’s not going to. He can’t.

He’s trolling and better left ignored. He brings nothing to the table.

Fly: actually, no “retrospect” is necessary.  The movie “Wag The Dog”, a thinly disguised expose of Clinton’s phony “war against terrorism” in order to cover his domestic peccadilloes was released in 1997(the late Nineties), which means it was written and shot some time before that.  No retrospect at all; a lot of us knew at the time what he was really up to.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Saddam was completely secular and no hazard to anyone, which is why he provided shelter to Islamist Abu Nidal for decades, and also provided aid and comfort to the terrorists trying to drive Israel into the sea.

Blah, blah, blah, blah.  You mention everything under the sun, except about how it helps us deal with Al Qaeda or how preventing WMDs from getting in their hands was important.

Anybody who listened to any SOTU address the president gave prior to the invasion of Iraq knows that this newly created line from the right is BS.  Because if Clinton or any Lib argued those points as a justification to invade Iraq they would attack it relentlessly from every angle.  Pathetic.

Yes, Hannitized, if the President didn’t mention a factor in the few minutes available in a speech, we certainly cannot use that evidence to provide context for his decision and to further evaluate it.  That’s why, of course, historians make a living doing that very thing.

Can I suggest you spend some time away from this forum to learn some basic “logic”?

Funny that. Today is the first time I’ve read his drivel since the day he showed up. I don’t and haven’t responded to the guy, all the while he spends his time calling me names.

Wow.  What I love most about you Lickingshoes is not your blatant stupidity, its your holier than thou attitude you have while you go about being stupid.  It’s the very reason why I bother spending time at right-wing circle jerk parties.  You, and people like you, are so dead certain you are right, when you are wrong.  That behavior explains to me how people on your side can be so misguided.

I’ll wait for “Hannitized” to back up this claim.

Actually,...I won’t. What’s the point? He’s not going to. He can’t.

Actually, I can Lickingtoes.  You see the words “throw insults in my direction”?  Do any of those imply you were speaking directly to me?  No, but does that mean that you dont insult me?  No.  I’m sure this little thing like basic English if far to hard for you to comprehend, but I shall attempt anyway.

Behold, more lies from you:

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/giuliani_to_endorse_mccain/#comments

Lickingshoes throwing insults in my direction: Proof, Ken, Bat One - Why do you guys spend so much of your blogging time refuting the lies of the hypocritically childish “Hannitized”? I notice that much of the conversation is spent refuting his twisted version of what we as conservatives believe in. His comments serves no purpose other than to be childish and then he has the nerve to berate others for behavior that he himself engages in.

Thank you very much.  I look forward to your apology.  Even though I know you won’t admit you lied or worse, were too stupid to know you dont know what in the hell you are talking about.

That’s why, of course, historians make a living doing that very thing.

Funny.  What you call historians, other people call history revisionists. 

You can squawk and spin yourself stupid for all I care.  But the American people remember how often and how many times outside of the SOTU speeches that the administration was focused on everything but the justifications you cite for invading Iraq.

Kudos!  This is the first cogent, brutally honest thing you’ve said!  My congratulations.  I will gladly accept yet one more childish, small-minded and altogether meaningless insult in exchange for your acknowledging your own lack of standards.

Your welcome.  But heres the tricky part Batboy.  You don’t possess them either.  You can pretend that you do, but really, you offer childish and small-minded and altogether meaningless insults yourself.  As evidenced yesterday when you used the titles: Surrender Monkey, Tax and Spend , Deceitful and so on.

If you feel that you have achieved something by getting me to admit that I gladly and happily throw insults, think again.  I came here from day one stating that I would continue, unless someone wanted to call a truce.  I know all to well that I can play nice, but that kindness would be taken advantage of and an insult from my opponent would come anyway.  So the way I see it, why pretend we are being nice when we really dont want to.  The critical point of debating is making the argument, not being polite on a right-wing circle jerk website.  How naive to think we live in that world.

The critical point of debating is making the argument…

Good point!  You “make the argument” by using facts and logic, not by personal attack, as you constantly attempt to do.  Your pathetic attempt to justify your constant hatespew by claiming the right to a “preemptive strike” based on stuff you just make up is just silly.  You do as you are, nothing more.  No one else is responsible for your choices.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Riiiight R o b e r t.  That’s why the tone of this site, and Robs post, is/was so mature and matter of fact.

/endsarcasm

supporting evidence:

...does it sometimes seem that the mainstream media’s coverage of the Iraq war bears a rather appalling resemblance to a bunch of monkeys in a zoo throwing their feces against a wall to see what does and does not stick?

And how about this sites audience and comments?

You leftists are going to look dumber than usual if Soros has any financial backing of the “survey.”

So quit while your ahead Robby.  Nobody here is buying your pile.

36, now 37, comments and there is not one upholding the results of the “study”. Even the ones who would normally believe this kind of propaganda didn’t spend any time defending it or examining the methodology used.

That’s pretty telling.

...does it sometimes seem that the mainstream media’s coverage of the Iraq war bears a rather appalling resemblance to a bunch of monkeys in a zoo throwing their feces against a wall to see what does and does not stick?

Actually, I think that’s a rather complimentary description of the MSM. 
My version of what they do is “lies, half-truths and outright fabrications”, and “the Dem Ministry of Propaganda”, both of which are more to the point than the simian comparison.

You still haven’t used any facts or logic in your comments; all you have is unsubstantiated personal attack.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

I’m not sure what other facts are needed to cast doubt on this study.  Its results are wildly out of the ballpark compared to other studies with more substantive foundations.  Plus it relies on personal testimonies and a census that was done over a decade ago under a regime that wasn’t exactly known to tell the truth about things.

I’ll admit that these facts don’t, by themselves, debunk the study...but surely they cast a shadow of doubt of it.

Reasonable observers would admit as much.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Funny.  What you call historians, other people call history revisionists. 

That’s a nice personal attack (ad hominem fallacy, ahem), and a nice admission that you haven’t read much history, but would you like to make an actual argument?

Sorry, but the reality is that any decent researcher does not content himself merely with a small set of preselected facts in analyzing a situation.  That’s a brilliant prescription for falling prey to GIGO syndrome.

It’s not that we cant agree with the possibility the poll could have been done better.  There really no logical argument against the science that was put behind the poll, only the vast left wing conspiracy theory argument was used to explain away the poll and apparently every other negative fact of the war.

Soros funded the Lancet II study, if you didn’t know, and that study was widely discredited even by the liberal Iraq Casualty Count folks.

I have more than the ‘vast leftwing conspiracy’ argument on my side, I have actual proof and history that anti-war activists make up these numbers in order to further their agendas.

Do you, Hannitized, actually believe 1,000,000 died in Iraq, or are you just here flapping your gums?

36, now 37, comments and there is not one upholding the results of the “study”. Even the ones who would normally believe this kind of propaganda didn’t spend any time defending it or examining the methodology used.

That’s pretty telling.

Whats the point.  There is perhaps error in the report.  But even when there is a more scientific or accurate body count, you guys deny that as well. 

What I take issue with is the idea that the media is out to get you, and that this is some left-wing conspiracy.  What you need to prove for this theory to hold is that ORB is part of this left wing conspiracy. 

So who is ORB?

Established in 1994, ORB have grown to become one of the UK’s leading bespoke corporate and issues-led market research companies. In more than a decade of continual growth, we have worked successfully with over 150 clients in the private, public and voluntary sectors in over 65 countries. Driven by a team of highly experienced market research professionals with almost 100 years’ combined experience, we are proud to deliver both qualitative and quantitative research at the highest level.

As research providers, our aims are to meet and exceed the industry standards that are laid down by the professional bodies that we are members of, including the Market Research Society (MRS), European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research (ESOMAR) and the World Association of Public Opinion Research (WAPOR). ORB have been independently quality assured and given an excellent evaluation in both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. We are also registered under the Data Protection Act 1998.
At ORB, we seek to provide more than simply an efficient service; for each project, we provide a dedicated team of researchers whose innovative and creative thinking add an extra dimension to the results.

We not only understand how best to research stakeholder attitude, behaviour and opinion, but also how clients can best use our analysis and findings both strategically (in developing policy and communications) and tactically (for advertising, generating media interest and building a winning argument across the stakeholder community).

In 2002, we were the first market research company to offer a specific messaging service. We work with our clients’ communication and public affairs teams to create, develop, test and measure successful messages, slogans and creative strategies.

Clients have remarked that, as we are a small agency, they benefit from building a close working relationship with our team.

What do they do?

Research Services

Our cost-effective, innovative and reliable research, combined with a professional and personable approach, ensures that we deliver a quality service to our clients. We assemble a dedicated team of researchers, always led by a director, which will work with you on your project from start to finish. We are available to discuss your project’s progress at any time. As part of our service we not only provide the hard data, but also a full presentation or written report. We know that collecting data is only the start of the process - real value only comes from incisive interpretation and recommendations as to how your organisation could respond.

ORB provide a full range of quantitative and qualitative research services. We have expertise in ad-hoc and continuous research in the UK and over 60 other countries.

Perhaps unique among research agencies ORB offer an in-house messaging service. This provides research-led communication and message development consultancy, helping to ensure our clients’ research is presented in the most lucid and persuasive manner possible.

Quantitative Research

Telephone (CATI), Face-to-Face, Omnibus, Online, Hall Tests, Audience Response (Dials):

In-house Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) unit with 25 stations.

Nationwide random face-to-face surveys.

28 regional supervisors with access to a field-force of over 300 interviewers.
Real-time audience monitoring using a System of Testing Audience Reactions (STAR).

Qualitative Research

Highly experienced researchers for focus groups, paired interviews and one-to- one depth interviews:

Moderators specialising in consumer research, ad testing, new product development, political and social research, business to business and media.
Global qualitative experience.

So what we are left with is proving that these guys can be hired and bought.  Anyone want to take it upon themselves to prove these professionals can be bought to give the results their customers seek?  Anyone, Bueller?

Actually, I think that’s a rather complimentary description of the MSM. 
My version of what they do is “lies, half-truths and outright fabrications”, and “the Dem Ministry of Propaganda”, both of which are more to the point than the simian comparison.

You still haven’t used any facts or logic in your comments; all you have is unsubstantiated personal attack.

Robert,

I am deliberately trying to ignore you.  You demand facts but provide non of your own.  This is what you have always done.  Your not worth debating with when I have to do all the heavy lifting.

And by the way, what unsubstantiated personal attack are you talking about?

But even when there is a more scientific or accurate body count, you guys deny that as well.

Well you are simply wrong about that.

The only valid way of counting the dead in Iraq is . . .  actually counting the dead. Iraq’s Interior Ministry does exactly that, by counting casualties based on actual incident reports. They calculate that something like 50,000 have died in Iraq, a much more realistic figure given the relatively low-intensity nature of warfare in Iraq.

None of this phoney phone-polling, none of these inflated statistical analyses, nothing but the actual facts of who died.

Again, Hannitized, do you actually believe one million Iraqis have died from the war?

As for your reverence for ORB, Hannitized, when the Lancet studies came out, we were lectured again and again about how neutral, objective, scientific, honored,wonderful and honest John Hopkins U. and the Lancet were, and how infallible their methods must be.

We found out later it was a bucket of lies bought and paid for by George Soros, so you will excuse us if we are equally skeptical of these new claims also.

That’s a nice personal attack (ad hominem fallacy, ahem), and a nice admission that you haven’t read much history, but would you like to make an actual argument?

Sorry, but the reality is that any decent researcher does not content himself merely with a small set of preselected facts in analyzing a situation.  That’s a brilliant prescription for falling prey to GIGO syndrome.

Hey Bubba,

Do you know what the term personal attack means?  If you do, why don’t you tell me who I “personally attacked” with my remark?  Name one historian I personally attacked?  You didn’t even name a historian or provide a link to the history you speak of.  As far as I know, youre making things up.  I did not substitute any personal attack on you in place of responding to your argument, because you didnt make one (argument).

I have read a lot of “theories” as to why the president did what he did.  But until you give me a reference, you are merely talking out of your behind.

Americans experienced the great sale of this war, most of them don’t need to read revisionists history.

Or wait....let me give you what you are looking for.

Why dont you read some history books Bubba.  That way, you will know that this war was based on selling us the WMD line and the wake up call coming in the form of a mushroom cloud! 

There!  That was what you gave me, and that is what you are getting in return.  Now where do we go from here?  Genius!

As for your reverence for ORB, Hannitized, when the Lancet studies came out, we were lectured again and again about how neutral, objective, scientific, honored,wonderful and honest John Hopkins U. and the Lancet were, and how infallible their methods must be.

We found out later it was a bucket of lies bought and paid for by George Soros, so you will excuse us if we are equally skeptical of these new claims also.

Ken,

Do you even realize the argument you are making???? 

You are essentially saying; “Somebody lied once, about this issue, therefore, nobody else is capable of telling the truth”.

Therefore, because the Bush Administration and Cheney rushed to have a NIE report come out with information that was not true or accurate means every NIE report is to be considered meaningless and or lies?  No, of course not.  Yet that is the logic you are using.  It’s sort of dumb Ken.

The only valid way of counting the dead in Iraq is . . .  actually counting the dead.

Really?  How do you count the dead you can’t find???  How about mass graves?  How did we count those bodies, until we found them?  Give me a break.  Further, you have to trust that all the bodies were recovered and reported, and you cant.  There are so may flaws to this.  There will always be degrees of error in any approach.

You are essentially saying; “Somebody lied once, about this issue, therefore, nobody else is capable of telling the truth”.

Do me a favor and don’t put words in my mouth.

That is not what I am arguing. I am not arguing that ‘the Lancet study is wrong, therefore this study must also be wrong.’

I am merely stating that even respected institutions can be proven to be wrong, and ideologically blinded to the truth.

One million Iraqi dead in this war is a ridiculously high figure, contradicted by the Iraqi government itself. Knowledge about the history of warfare also shows that this is a vastly inflated figure, that is simply not correct.

Hannitized, do you believe one million Iraqis died, or are you still just here wasting everyone’s time?

How about mass graves?

Indeed . . . where are they, Hannitized?

Odd, the only mass graves found are filled with Saddam’s victims.

Let me get this straight, Hannitized:

1.  Responding to me by name several times qualifies as “deliberately ignoring” me.

2.  Calling historians “revisionist” is no insult to the historian.

3. Quoting marketing documents qualifies as doing the heavy lifting of research.

4.  There are no known weaknesses with statistical sampling methods, and we’ll stick by them even when direct measurements show them to be greatly in error.

5.  President Bush had no evidence for the war other than that which was presented in the State of the Union speech, and no other evidence would have been presented to Congress to obtain an authorization for war.

Whatever, Hannitized.  You can keep accusing us of ignoring key evidence, but do keep in mind that you’ve got four fingers pointing the other way, and your own words have made that abundantly clear.

Perhaps, I may be of assistance?  The first “study”, by Lancet I think, which said that some 600,000 Iraqis had been killed, was found to have been ridiculously off the mark on the high side, both statistically and anecdotally.

So now this new “study” comes along saying that 66% more Iraqis were killed than the previously de-bunked Lancet report, and this one is to be believed?

I think not!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

And by the way, what unsubstantiated personal attack are you talking about?

All of your comments contain at least one personal attack, but most of them contain multiple personal attacks.  I realize you’re just in it for the attention; why not try to get some more from your Mommy and Daddy, then?

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke