Victimhood
 

Neither of these guys look like Arabs. So, other than contributing nothing to the conversation, do you have a point?

Note to Taxwonk
 

New thread title?

Note to Taxwonk
 

That isn't my point and it never has been. Let me try and help you rap your simple little brain around why your position is fallacious with a similarly invalid syllogism:

1. I like sushi.

2. Japanese frequently eat sushi.

3. Therefore, I am Japanese.

And at this point, I think I have finished discussing things with you. I'll leave you to have your little fights with everybody else.

k
 

this thing poppin tonight or what?

Note to Taxwonk
 

and in the 40s the Japanese INVENTED crashing airplanes into shit on purpose, so therefore we should be profiling aging Jews also.

Victimhood
 

I'm on your side T. Neither of these guys looks suspicious. I would let both onto a plane with no particular scrutiny.

An A for effort.....
 

A lot of people know more than you do, but if you don't bother to try to learn about it then you can remain in blissful ignorance. What do you think David Kay was doing?

If you want your money back, talk to RT.

Because it's six years later, and in the interim we've occupied Iraq.

You certainly don't. I believe the military and intelligence knows more than you do.

Yes. And Desert Fox was in 1998, so you could say it was the straw that broke the camel's back, if you wanted to use that kind of metaphor. A RB who scores from 1 yard out gets a touchdown, even if he doesn't claim credit for the drive down the field.

You have yet to post a single citation to any sort of evidence that controverts or undermines anything Ricks says. Nor can you point to any reason that he should be considered biased, other than that he -- like much of the rest of the country -- thinks that Iraq is a clusterfuck.

An A for effort.....
 

I said something like that in the post to you yesterday or the day before, but you never responded. Off my corner, ho.

An A for effort.....
 

sooo, can I cite your post as evidence mine is true?

Note to Taxwonk
 

That was exactly your point as evidenced below.



You said:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by taxwonk
I think that statistic is utterly irrelevant compared to the fact that there are far more Arabs don't blow up planes (hi Hank!) than Arabs that do. As a consequence, to suggest that Arabs are more likely, because they are Arabs, to be terrorists, is to act upon prejudice and not reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I said:

Of course there are more Arabs that don't blow up planes than do. Otherwise there wouldn't be any planes left. But, like I said, more Arabs blow up planes per capita, than Norwegians. So it is a fact, all other factors being equal, that an Arab is more likely to blow up a plane than a Frenchman. Just like it is a fact that you are I are more likely to be serial killers than an African American women.

You said:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by taxwonk
You're forgetting two of the most basic rules of statistics. First, in order for statistics to have any meaning, there has to be a correlative relation between the things being measured. Your basic fallacy is that there is a correlation between being Arab and blowing up planes. That is not true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I said:

I don't know how to respond to this. You are saying black is white. Is there anyone else on this board that thinks there is no "correlative relation" between being Arab and blowing up airplanes?


Both you are statements were incredibly stupid, and because they were, no on the board has supported them. No one has contested mine. As I said, find one person that agrees with you and we can start the discussion again. If not one person backs you up, I think it is safe to assume that your statements were incredibly stupid. Or could it be that you are under the delusion thant you understand statistics (and I am talking the most basic concepts) better than everyone else on this board?

An A for effort.....
 

It only helps if you learn from people that actually know themselves.


I am sorry you are right. The fact that the administration didn't listen to you is obscene. You shouldn't be incensed that they didn't acknowledge that you were an expert and at least listen to you before going in.


If Clinton thought he had weapons when he left office, then no one knew BEFORE the invasion that there were no weapons. And that includes the group of experts you include yourself in.


Of course. So what you are implying, that you knew more or know more than the military and intelligence?


You could say, but you would be assuming facts not in evidence. The straw that broke the camels back could have been Bush resolve. Once Saddam realized W. was coming in he got rid of them. My point is we don't know.


Why do I care about Rick? I have just undermined everything you have said and that is all that matters.

An A for effort.....
 

Spanky v. Wonk
Spanky v. Ty

Looks like someone is back from hiatus with a vengence!

Note to Taxwonk
 

Huh? WWII era Japanese were predominately Jewish?

Army meets its retention goal (a month early)
 

If people in the military are so convinced that the administration has screwed up in Iraq, that Iraq is a senseless war, and we have no chance of succeeding - why are they all reenlisting.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...08-30-16-43-14

Army meets its retention goal (a month early)
 

Ignoring that the complaints are apparently coming mostly from senior officers, because the governement is paying them to reenlist? From the article:

"So far this year, the Army has doled out an average bonus of $14,000, to eligible soldiers, for a total of $610 million in extra payments.

'The bonuses have a lot to do with it, along with a feeling of accomplishment that comes with doing their mission,' said Army spokesman Henry Minitrez."