(12-02-2015 01:40 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2015 09:30 AM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] (12-01-2015 10:28 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-01-2015 09:38 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] number of american muslims in favor of shariah law
You never cease to amaze me with your stupidity. If 51% of 600 people from an opt in survey conducted by the most biased organization imaginable for such a poll is legitimate, then you are a lost cause.
Follow the conversation. If you can't stfu. Oh hell, just stfu anyway.
Let me help you out a little you utter and complete idiot.
"I think virtually all Muslims in the U.S. left their countries in order to get away from Shariah Law and oppression."
Nope. Not even close. But it would make my day to hear your dumb*** argue otherwise.
nice attempt to dodge. too bad it doesn't work with me.
(12-02-2015 01:45 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]if I assume you have been following this thread, then I'm guessing you have literacy problems.
Gonna throw that reply to ER right back in your face you ******* moron.
I didn't dodge a damn thing. You can't follow the conversation and have the literacy problem. That's on you.
There are some dim wits around here but you may take the cake.
(12-02-2015 02:01 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2015 01:40 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2015 09:30 AM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] (12-01-2015 10:28 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-01-2015 09:38 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] number of american muslims in favor of shariah law
You never cease to amaze me with your stupidity. If 51% of 600 people from an opt in survey conducted by the most biased organization imaginable for such a poll is legitimate, then you are a lost cause.
Follow the conversation. If you can't stfu. Oh hell, just stfu anyway.
Let me help you out a little you utter and complete idiot.
"I think virtually all Muslims in the U.S. left their countries in order to get away from Shariah Law and oppression."
Nope. Not even close. But it would make my day to hear your dumb*** argue otherwise.
nice attempt to dodge. too bad it doesn't work with me.
(12-02-2015 01:45 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]if I assume you have been following this thread, then I'm guessing you have literacy problems.
Gonna throw that reply to ER right back in your face you ******* moron.
I didn't dodge a damn thing. You can't follow the conversation and have the literacy problem. That's on you.
There are some dim wits around here but you may take the cake.
You have a longstanding history of denying anything and everything even if the facts are thrown right in your face proving you wrong. To say the study that you provided is legitimate proves this.
(12-02-2015 11:23 AM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ]I can't answer for john but this statement:
"Here is the simple and undeniable fact the overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats,"
is absolutely not supported by anything in that study and taken at face value is absurd. If he said more former felons are likely to vote for democrats than republicans, then that could be argued but what he said is ridiculous. But politicians apparently can lie with impunity.
Cruz didn't present that study, did he? So why is he beholden to a study he didn't claim?
I think the difference between
a majority of violent criminals are democrats and
more felons are likely to vote for democrats
is a matter of 'taste' only, not veracity. One you say in front of a partisan crowd and the other you MIGHT say in more mixed company.... or a democrat might actually admit.
(12-02-2015 01:39 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]The only complaint I have about Cruz and this comment is that it just goes to show how ****ed up our political system has become. if we have any hope of moving away from the extreme partisan climate then comments like these should be avoided.
I don't like that the cruz campaign when asked to back this up after the comments were made (and later done by ER in this thread) resorted to bullsh**ing a study.
comment 1 is fair... though certainly one would expect someone trailing in the polls to do something 'extreme' to get attention.
Comment 2 is not fair.... You agree that he is right, so why does he have to back up comments you agree with? ER's poll may be flawed, or not, but you seem to recognize the veracity of its conclusion.
(12-02-2015 02:40 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2015 02:01 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2015 01:40 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2015 09:30 AM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] (12-01-2015 10:28 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]You never cease to amaze me with your stupidity. If 51% of 600 people from an opt in survey conducted by the most biased organization imaginable for such a poll is legitimate, then you are a lost cause.
Follow the conversation. If you can't stfu. Oh hell, just stfu anyway.
Let me help you out a little you utter and complete idiot.
"I think virtually all Muslims in the U.S. left their countries in order to get away from Shariah Law and oppression."
Nope. Not even close. But it would make my day to hear your dumb*** argue otherwise.
nice attempt to dodge. too bad it doesn't work with me.
(12-02-2015 01:45 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]if I assume you have been following this thread, then I'm guessing you have literacy problems.
Gonna throw that reply to ER right back in your face you ******* moron.
I didn't dodge a damn thing. You can't follow the conversation and have the literacy problem. That's on you.
There are some dim wits around here but you may take the cake.
You have a longstanding history of denying anything and everything even if the facts are thrown right in your face proving you wrong. To say the study that you provided is legitimate proves this.
Again with the literacy problem. I made no comment on the study google spit out.
It's real simple lamebrain. I took issue with his admitted assumption that "virtually all Muslims in the U.S. left their countries in order to get away from Shariah Law". I merely disagreeded. Why is this flying so far above your head. But please, feel free to, as you say, throw facts right in my face proving me wrong.
Go ahead. I dare you.
(12-02-2015 02:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2015 11:23 AM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ]I can't answer for john but this statement:
"Here is the simple and undeniable fact the overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats,"
is absolutely not supported by anything in that study and taken at face value is absurd. If he said more former felons are likely to vote for democrats than republicans, then that could be argued but what he said is ridiculous. But politicians apparently can lie with impunity.
Cruz didn't present that study, did he? So why is he beholden to a study he didn't claim?
I think the difference between
a majority of violent criminals are democrats and
more felons are likely to vote for democrats
is a matter of 'taste' only, not veracity. One you say in front of a partisan crowd and the other you MIGHT say in more mixed company.... or a democrat might actually admit.
(12-02-2015 01:39 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]The only complaint I have about Cruz and this comment is that it just goes to show how ****ed up our political system has become. if we have any hope of moving away from the extreme partisan climate then comments like these should be avoided.
I don't like that the cruz campaign when asked to back this up after the comments were made (and later done by ER in this thread) resorted to bullsh**ing a study.
comment 1 is fair... though certainly one would expect someone trailing in the polls to do something 'extreme' to get attention.
Comment 2 is not fair.... You agree that he is right, so why does he have to back up comments you agree with? ER's poll may be flawed, or not, but you seem to recognize the veracity of its conclusion.
Cruz's campaign referenced this study after he made the comments trying to validate them, so he is beholden to it.
Comment two is fair. There are ways to validate what cruz has said without referencing that study. That study is not a legitimate reference point. Just because you are drawing conclusions that are indeed factual, that doesn't excuse oneself if they butchered the scientific method in the process. If we "guessed correct" that's not scientific and it goes against everything that makes the scientific method legitimate as it is about taking the proper steps on the path to drawing the correct conclusion.
(12-02-2015 02:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Cruz didn't present that study, did he? So why is he beholden to a study he didn't claim?
I think the difference between
a majority of violent criminals are democrats and
more felons are likely to vote for democrats
is a matter of 'taste' only, not veracity. One you say in front of a partisan crowd and the other you MIGHT say in more mixed company.... or a democrat might actually admit.
His campaign referenced this study when asked to substantiate his claim.
The difference between those two statements to me is this. In the first you're implying that if you take 100 random violent criminals 51 or more are going to vote Democrat in the next election. The truth, at least according to the data from NY's records is more like 6 will vote Democrat and 1 Republican. The rest? Yeah they're thugs that don't vote. Which if you're going to characterize MOST violent criminals is probably the most accurate. This doesn't even touch on the fact that he's assuming that all these felons are violent which isn't true. Most are non-violent convictions. The second statement, yeah 6 to one in favor of Democrats but again that's not most of the convicted felons, that's most of the convicted felons that bother to vote which is very few. I don't think Cruz is dumb, he can understand the difference. I think we should demand better but with every lie a politician tells half the population will defend him regardless and the other half will go for blood regardless. And no truth or accountability is obtained through the bull**** storm the ensues. Rinse, lather, repeat.
(12-02-2015 02:59 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2015 02:40 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2015 02:01 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2015 01:40 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2015 09:30 AM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]Follow the conversation. If you can't stfu. Oh hell, just stfu anyway.
Let me help you out a little you utter and complete idiot.
"I think virtually all Muslims in the U.S. left their countries in order to get away from Shariah Law and oppression."
Nope. Not even close. But it would make my day to hear your dumb*** argue otherwise.
nice attempt to dodge. too bad it doesn't work with me.
(12-02-2015 01:45 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]if I assume you have been following this thread, then I'm guessing you have literacy problems.
Gonna throw that reply to ER right back in your face you ******* moron.
I didn't dodge a damn thing. You can't follow the conversation and have the literacy problem. That's on you.
There are some dim wits around here but you may take the cake.
You have a longstanding history of denying anything and everything even if the facts are thrown right in your face proving you wrong. To say the study that you provided is legitimate proves this.
Again with the literacy problem. I made no comment on the study google spit out.
It's real simple lamebrain. I took issue with his admitted assumption that "virtually all Muslims in the U.S. left their countries in order to get away from Shariah Law". I merely disagreeded. Why is this flying so far above your head. But please, feel free to, as you say, throw facts right in my face proving me wrong.
Go ahead. I dare you.
spare me the BS. you are trying to weasel out of this on a technicality.
(12-02-2015 03:12 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]Cruz's campaign referenced this study after he made the comments trying to validate them, so he is beholden to it.
I've got the argument you guys are making now... because apparently you're all preaching the same rhetoric you're being fed. A simple google search actually almost verbatim parrots your talking points.
As I said, your problem is that HE got to frame it, and he didn't frame it the way you think he should... so despite the fact that nobody cares that 'violent criminals' and 'convicted felons' aren't really the same cohort... THIS is really the only legitimate complaint against his comment.
Quote:Comment two is fair. There are ways to validate what cruz has said without referencing that study. That study is not a legitimate reference point. Just because you are drawing conclusions that are indeed factual, that doesn't excuse oneself if they butchered the scientific method in the process. If we "guessed correct" that's not scientific and it goes against everything that makes the scientific method legitimate as it is about taking the proper steps on the path to drawing the correct conclusion.
Exactly how did this study violate legitimate scientific principles?
It didn't. It may not exactly say what Cruz claimed it said, but that doesn't make it factually inaccurate, nor a guess. More likely, someone stated something we all know is true (you guys even admit it) and then they did a quick google search to provide links to research.... reading headlines and not investigating the methodology.
So now we're going to act as if he simply GUESSED correctly about the link that everyone recognizes.
(12-02-2015 03:21 PM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2015 02:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Cruz didn't present that study, did he? So why is he beholden to a study he didn't claim?
I think the difference between
a majority of violent criminals are democrats and
more felons are likely to vote for democrats
is a matter of 'taste' only, not veracity. One you say in front of a partisan crowd and the other you MIGHT say in more mixed company.... or a democrat might actually admit.
The difference betweenthose two statements to me is this. In the first you're implying that if you take 100 random violent criminals 51 or more are going to vote Democrat in the next election. The truth, at least according to the data from NY's records is more like 6 will vote Democrat and 1 Republican. The rest? Yeah they're thugs that don't vote. Which if you're going to characterize MOST violent criminals is probably the most accurate. This doesn't even touch on the fact that he's assuming that all these felons are violent which isn't true. Most are non-violent convictions. The second statement, yeah 6 to one in favor of Democrats but again that's not most of the convicted felons, that's most of the convicted felons that bother to vote which is very few. I don't think Cruz is dumb, he can understand the difference. I think we should demand better but with every lie a politician tells half the population will defend him regardless and the other half will go for blood regardless. And no truth or accountability is obtained through the bull**** storm the ensues. Rinse, lather, repeat.
That's what you inferred, not what he implied. That is precisely my point.
As to later, rinse, repeat... That's all fine and well, but it's certainly worked quite well for the presumed D nominee and her husband... famously asking what the definition of 'is' is... and her, 'what difference does it make'?
Until you change voters habits, you're not going to change politician's habits. If you want to skewer Cruz for this, that's fine... but whom are you going to vote for otherwise? Either accept it for what it is, which is relatively mild politically motivated hyperbole and move on knowing that the general statement about democrats being universally viewed as 'softer' on crime (even by democrats) or don't.... but let's not act as if this is anywhere near the 'biggest' or most divisive lie a politician has ever told. How about, 'if you like your doctor, you can keep him'?
Weasle out of what? Come on, enlighten me. WTF are you talking about. You and UCF like to jump in the middle of conversations and start arguing phantoms.
Exactly how did this study violate legitimate scientific principles?
It didn't. It may not exactly say what Cruz claimed it said, but that doesn't make it factually inaccurate, nor a guess. More likely, someone stated something we all know is true (you guys even admit it) and then they did a quick google search to provide links to research.... reading headlines and not investigating the methodology.
So now we're going to act as if he simply GUESSED correctly about the link that everyone recognizes.
your ignorance here is astounding
(12-02-2015 04:16 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly how did this study violate legitimate scientific principles?
It didn't. It may not exactly say what Cruz claimed it said, but that doesn't make it factually inaccurate, nor a guess. More likely, someone stated something we all know is true (you guys even admit it) and then they did a quick google search to provide links to research.... reading headlines and not investigating the methodology.
So now we're going to act as if he simply GUESSED correctly about the link that everyone recognizes.
your ignorance here is astounding
What in the hell does any of that have to do with me?
So your going to continue ignoring me telling you what I posted about. If that's how you want to go through life, who am I to stop you. Good luck in your continued stumbling about.
Nm, guess that was for Hambone.
(12-02-2015 03:52 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]Weasle out of what? Come on, enlighten me. WTF are you talking about. You and UCF like to jump in the middle of conversations and start arguing phantoms.
You literally have no shame.
I've repeated myself several times. Exactly what is so confounding you?
(12-02-2015 04:31 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]I've repeated myself several times. Exactly what is so confounding you?
Your dirtbag posting tactics. Pretty much every link on that google page is related to that BS study. You really are a dirtbag.
Why thank you. But still, you aren't following the conversation miko and I were having. Jump in if you like. Otherwise you're talking to a wall.
yeah, it was for me... but that doesn't make your reply completely off base.
Cruz made a statement that we all admit is 'functionally' though not absolutely correct.
The study in question was presented to support his opinion, and not necessarily as the 'source' of his opinion any more than it is the source of any of the rest of ours.... though as I said, nobody should have to support it since we all know it is true.
Rather than attempt to justify his claim that the study somehow violates scientifically valid principles, he claims I am ignorant.
His previous attempts to refute the study are woefully inadequate... most notably in that he starts by claiming it lacks veracity due to a small sample size (despite the fact that many national polls supposedly representing hundreds of millions are conducted with only a few thousand respondents) AND THEN, he actually validates them by claiming that they said Cruz's interpretation wasn't what they intended.
If it wasn't scientifically valid, then their condemnation of Cruz's use of their data (which really only boiled down to a difference between convicted felons and violent criminals... BOTH characterizations Cruz is quoted as using) is invalid because the data is invalid. You can't have it both ways, claiming the study is flawed and then claiming he is mis-representing the flawed data because the original presenters claim he is.
But the fact is that when a random 3 state sample overwhelmingly supports an otherwise national supposition (6:1 is FAR more than 'most' or 'a majority' and it is consistent across a pretty wide geographic and political spectrum) then arguing over such minutia is really pointless. The study supports his belief that there is a link between felons and the democrats, not Republicans as 'the other side' (in his opinion) wants to portray. In these 3 states, it was 6:1.
Once again, rather than debate what he said... which at best is a relatively minor correction... convicted felon vs violent criminal... these are somehow unparalleled lies, even though they're true... that make him unfit for the office.
It's the same foolishness John claims to be fighting against in his complaint.
(12-02-2015 03:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]That's what you inferred, not what he implied. That is precisely my point.
As to later, rinse, repeat... That's all fine and well, but it's certainly worked quite well for the presumed D nominee and her husband... famously asking what the definition of 'is' is... and her, 'what difference does it make'?
Until you change voters habits, you're not going to change politician's habits. If you want to skewer Cruz for this, that's fine... but whom are you going to vote for otherwise? Either accept it for what it is, which is relatively mild politically motivated hyperbole and move on knowing that the general statement about democrats being universally viewed as 'softer' on crime (even by democrats) or don't.... but let's not act as if this is anywhere near the 'biggest' or most divisive lie a politician has ever told. How about, 'if you like your doctor, you can keep him'?
Well I'm not going to go on about this and I don't have any issue with your second 2 paragraphs but I'll ask you this with regard to your first point.
If I made this statement:
"Here is the simple and undeniable fact the overwhelming majority of Catholic Priests are Pedophiles"
What would you think I meant? The statement seems pretty straight forward to me and I would think to most people. Because most priests don't have sex of any sort are we supposed to assume that I meant of those that have sex most have sex with children? (Disclaimer: I don't have any stats on how many priests have sex or whom they have sex with). He said most violent criminals, which is obviously not true but makes a great sound byte. It is what it is, like you said.
(12-02-2015 04:52 PM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ]Well I'm not going to go on about this and I don't have any issue with your second 2 paragraphs but I'll ask you this with regard to your first point.
If I made this statement:
"Here is the simple and undeniable fact the overwhelming majority of Catholic Priests are Pedophiles"
What would you think I meant? The statement seems pretty straight forward to me and I would think to most people. Because most priests don't have sex of any sort are we supposed to assume that I meant of those that have sex most have sex with children? (Disclaimer: I don't have any stats on how many priests have sex or whom they have sex with). He said most violent criminals, which is obviously not true but makes a great sound byte. It is what it is, like you said.
apples:oranges
He didn't say that the overwhelming majority of Democrats were violent criminals.
HIS comparison impunes the impunable... violent criminals/felons. Your comparison impunes the innocent, catholic priests.
Let me say it differently so it will be more clear. You understand the difference between saying most criminals are democrats and saying most democrats are criminals, right? It's not an insult to call a criminal a democrat. It's an insult to call a democrat a criminal.
Not only that, but there is no evidence whatsoever that even a SIGNIFICANT number of convicted pedophiles are priests... so the statement isn't even remotely demonstrably true.... whereas Cruz's statement is. Truth is always a defense to any kind of slander.
Now if you wanted to say that by far the biggest legal problem facing catholic priests is pedophilia in the priesthood, or if you said that among pedophile pastors, most are Catholic, I don't think anyone would demand that you show me some study to prove it...
I'm trying to find the video of Leavenworth celebrating Obama's victory. Looked pretty overwhelming to me. We all know it is true. John and mturn are just being a waste of time. Nobody on here can actually say with a straight face that the majority of violent criminals are conservative. And nobody on here can say that giving felons the right to vote won't benefit the democrats. Heck, the felon vote would be larger than the gay vote.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk