Comments on: Thoughts from Abu Ghraib http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/ News and Observations about the University of California, Berkeley. Sat, 05 Dec 2009 13:08:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: anon54 http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/#comment-9187 Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:31:59 +0000 http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/#comment-9187 Baghdad sounds a lot safer than Long Beach, where you can nearly beat some white kids to death, get convicted of a hate crime, then only get probation, and the media buries the story. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/02/national/a173715S62.DTL double standard, much? If this was white kids beating up black kids, this would be front page news, not to mention the Al and Jesse show on the march. Baghdad sounds a lot safer than Long Beach, where you can nearly beat some white kids to death, get convicted of a hate crime, then only get probation, and the media buries the story.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/02/national/a173715S62.DTL

double standard, much? If this was white kids beating up black kids, this would be front page news, not to mention the Al and Jesse show on the march.

]]> by: Yaman http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/#comment-9185 Sun, 04 Feb 2007 22:41:43 +0000 http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/#comment-9185 Lib lib lib lib lib. Lib, lib lib lib? Lib lib lib... Lib! Lib lib lib lib lib. Lib, lib lib lib? Lib lib lib… Lib!

]]> by: mano http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/#comment-9184 Sun, 04 Feb 2007 16:08:24 +0000 http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/#comment-9184 anon54, you retard, those are the bs "statistics" i was referring to. anon54, you retard, those are the bs “statistics” i was referring to.

]]> by: Beetle http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/#comment-9183 Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:06:30 +0000 http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/#comment-9183 Mano badmouthed the filter, and it got its revenge. Mano badmouthed the filter, and it got its revenge.

]]> by: anon54 http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/#comment-9182 Sat, 03 Feb 2007 17:00:32 +0000 http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/#comment-9182 here's your facts, ma'am http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/29/132706.shtml?s=ic here’s your facts, ma’am

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/29/132706.shtml?s=ic

]]> by: mano http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/#comment-9181 Sat, 03 Feb 2007 15:55:11 +0000 http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/#comment-9181 o wait, guess what. he wasnt talking about how dangerous iraq is for americans, he was talking about a bs study by the famous statistician "Rep. Steve King, R-IA". ahahaa. this genius used civillian death rates from the pentagon to determine that famous number. iraq (a country) is thus less dangerous than washington DC, (a city). the brilliance of this logic, is that it rests on "numbers from the pentagon", whereas the pentagon, as General Tommy Franks so famously noted, "doesnt do body counts". so, based on statistics that the pentagon itself doesnt even calculate, pulled out of the azz of some returded war supporting senator, iraq is a big success story. the only study that i know of that used real scientific/statistical methodology to determine the numbers was conducted by trained epidemiologists from US universities and estimates the iraqi (violent) death toll at 600,000, which works out to an annualized death rate of 660 or so. anyway, the real problem with the argument is not that returdz are rigging statistics that will give you a low "violent" death rate for iraq (an ENTIRE country) relative to washington DC (a city), its just that noone, and i mean noone, who has a single braincell in their brains and any information, thinks that baghdad is a safer place to be than washington DC right now. o wait, guess what. he wasnt talking about how dangerous iraq is for americans, he was talking about a bs study by the famous statistician “Rep. Steve King, R-IA”. ahahaa. this genius used civillian death rates from the pentagon to determine that famous number. iraq (a country) is thus less dangerous than washington DC, (a city).

the brilliance of this logic, is that it rests on “numbers from the pentagon”, whereas the pentagon, as General Tommy Franks so famously noted, “doesnt do body counts”. so, based on statistics that the pentagon itself doesnt even calculate, pulled out of the azz of some returded war supporting senator, iraq is a big success story.

the only study that i know of that used real scientific/statistical methodology to determine the numbers was conducted by trained epidemiologists from US universities and estimates the iraqi (violent) death toll at 600,000, which works out to an annualized death rate of 660 or so.

anyway, the real problem with the argument is not that returdz are rigging statistics that will give you a low “violent” death rate for iraq (an ENTIRE country) relative to washington DC (a city), its just that noone, and i mean noone, who has a single braincell in their brains and any information, thinks that baghdad is a safer place to be than washington DC right now.

]]> by: mano http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/#comment-9179 Sat, 03 Feb 2007 15:50:45 +0000 http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/#comment-9179 o wait, guess what. retardo wasnt talking about how dangerous iraq is for americans, he was talking about a bs study by the famous statistician "Rep. Steve King, R-IA". ahahaa. this genius used civillian death rates from the pentagon to determine that famous number. iraq (a country) is thus less dangerous than washington DC, (a city). the brilliance of this logic, however, is that it rests on "numbers from the pentagon", whereas the pentagon, as General Tommy Franks so famously noted, "doesnt do body counts". so, based on statistics that the pentagon itself doesnt even calculate, pulled out of the azz of some retarded war supporting senator, iraq is a big success story. the only study that i know of that used real scientific/statistical methodology (as opposed to digging around in the dimly lit asses of us senators) to determine the numbers was conducted by trained epidemiologists from US universities and estimates the iraqi (violent) death toll at 600,000, which works out to an annualized death rate of 660 or so. id post a link, but calstuff flags any linked posts as "spam" and wont publish them. anyway, the real problem with the argument is not that returdz are rigging statistics that will give you a low "violent" death rate for iraq (an ENTIRE country) relative to washington DC (a city), its just that noone, and i mean noone, who has a single braincell in their brains and any information, thinks that baghdad is a safer place to be than washington DC right now. least of all for americans. so what the fugg are these people talking about? o wait, guess what. retardo wasnt talking about how dangerous iraq is for americans, he was talking about a bs study by the famous statistician “Rep. Steve King, R-IA”. ahahaa. this genius used civillian death rates from the pentagon to determine that famous number. iraq (a country) is thus less dangerous than washington DC, (a city). the brilliance of this logic, however, is that it rests on “numbers from the pentagon”, whereas the pentagon, as General Tommy Franks so famously noted, “doesnt do body counts”. so, based on statistics that the pentagon itself doesnt even calculate, pulled out of the azz of some retarded war supporting senator, iraq is a big success story.

the only study that i know of that used real scientific/statistical methodology (as opposed to digging around in the dimly lit asses of us senators) to determine the numbers was conducted by trained epidemiologists from US universities and estimates the iraqi (violent) death toll at 600,000, which works out to an annualized death rate of 660 or so. id post a link, but calstuff flags any linked posts as “spam” and wont publish them.

anyway, the real problem with the argument is not that returdz are rigging statistics that will give you a low “violent” death rate for iraq (an ENTIRE country) relative to washington DC (a city), its just that noone, and i mean noone, who has a single braincell in their brains and any information, thinks that baghdad is a safer place to be than washington DC right now. least of all for americans. so what the fugg are these people talking about?

]]> by: anon54 http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/#comment-9178 Sat, 03 Feb 2007 15:36:20 +0000 http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/#comment-9178 why are all you libtards so upset by paul's suggestion. didn't cindy sheehan call for an end to the "military occupation" of new orleans after katrina? sounds like you libs are disregarding the sage advice of mama moonbat?? why are all you libtards so upset by paul’s suggestion. didn’t cindy sheehan call for an end to the “military occupation” of new orleans after katrina? sounds like you libs are disregarding the sage advice of mama moonbat??

]]> by: mano http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/#comment-9177 Sat, 03 Feb 2007 15:25:46 +0000 http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/#comment-9177 dear freakn retardz, your numbers are wrong. wrong as in freaking retar-deadwrong. paul, please post your source, and how these numbers were figured out, so i can also poke fun at the retardz at the pentagon. meanwhile, for those of you who can do simple arithmetic, this is a matter of simple division. number of casualties divided by number of troops in iraq. last month there were 84 deaths out of ~130,000 troops. so, how does a returd get from ~80 deaths in a month to ~25 deaths in a year? deliberate ignorance of reality? dear freakn retardz,

your numbers are wrong. wrong as in freaking retar-deadwrong. paul, please post your source, and how these numbers were figured out, so i can also poke fun at the retardz at the pentagon.

meanwhile, for those of you who can do simple arithmetic, this is a matter of simple division. number of casualties divided by number of troops in iraq. last month there were 84 deaths out of ~130,000 troops.

so, how does a returd get from ~80 deaths in a month to ~25 deaths in a year? deliberate ignorance of reality?

]]> by: chet http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/#comment-9176 Sat, 03 Feb 2007 12:12:50 +0000 http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2007/01/31/527/#comment-9176 too funny. paul posts some hard numerical evidence on violent death rates, and yaman responds by talking about choking on pretzels. actually, it's not funny at all, the prospect of yaman getting a degree from berkeley is devaluing everyone else's degrees. your pathetic excuse for rational argumentation is an embarassment to this instiution. too funny. paul posts some hard numerical evidence on violent death rates, and yaman responds by talking about choking on pretzels. actually, it’s not funny at all, the prospect of yaman getting a degree from berkeley is devaluing everyone else’s degrees. your pathetic excuse for rational argumentation is an embarassment to this instiution.

]]>