Can I ask a couple of stupid questions?

[Mike in Syracuse]

First off, let me say that I ask these from a point of complete political neutrality.

 

1. Why is every Democrat automatically branded a "liberal"?

 

2. Why is it that if you question the management of the "War on Terror" people accuse you of being un-American and not supporting the troops.

 

3. Why do people want to portray Conservatives as evil?

 

4. WTF has happened to legitimate debate on the issues?

 

5. Am I the only one that feels like they need to take a shower after they watch election coverage?

[catchescannonballs]

First off, let me say that I ask these from a point of complete political neutrality. 

 

1.  Why is every Democrat automatically branded a "liberal"?

 

2.  Why is it that if you question the management of the "War on Terror" people accuse you of being un-American and not supporting the troops.

 

3.  Why do people want to portray Conservatives as evil?

 

4.  WTF has happened to legitimate debate on the issues?

 

5.  Am I the only one that feels like they need to take a shower after they watch election  coverage?

826840[/snapback]

IMO there is a war going on and many people want us to lose, that makes me very angry and it should make all good Americans angry

[Mike in Syracuse]

IMO there is a war going on and many people want us to lose, that makes me very angry and it should make all good Americans angry

826845[/snapback]

 

Thanks for your response but you didn't answer any of my questions

 

As for your comment, I'm sure that there are people that want us to lose but every population has it's share of lunatics. Wanting American kids to die for a personal or political agenda is symptomatic of mental illness IMO. I'm not sure it's fair to say that "many" want us to lose.

 

I guess the bigger question is have we already lost and what exactly is victory at this point. Pulling the troops out would be catastrophic, keeping them there indefinitely would be unimaginable.

[MattyT]

I guess the bigger question is have we already lost and what exactly is victory at this point.  Pulling the troops out would be catastrophic, keeping them there indefinitely would be unimaginable.

826874[/snapback]

Well it didn't take you long to go from a few "stupid" questions to a single very, very good one. Wish I had an answer.

 

BTW, I started to answer your original questions, but couldn't do it without sounding like a complete ****, so I gave up.

[Bungee Jumper]

First off, let me say that I ask these from a point of complete political neutrality. 

 

1.  Why is every Democrat automatically branded a "liberal"?

 

2.  Why is it that if you question the management of the "War on Terror" people accuse you of being un-American and not supporting the troops.

 

3.  Why do people want to portray Conservatives as evil?

 

4.  WTF has happened to legitimate debate on the issues?

 

5.  Am I the only one that feels like they need to take a shower after they watch election  coverage?

826840[/snapback]

 

Stupidity; stupidity; stupidity; issues don't win elections, vitrol does; and stupi-...er, no.

[Orton's Arm]

Stupidity; stupidity; stupidity; issues don't win elections, vitrol does; and stupi-...er, no.

826882[/snapback]

Someone with your, um, conversational style should know how to spell "vitriol."

[Bungee Jumper]

Someone with your, um, conversational style should know how to spell "vitriol."

826925[/snapback]

 

I didn't spell it wrong, I just regressed it toward the mean.

[Ramius]

I didn't spell it wrong, I just regressed it toward the mean.

826932[/snapback]

 

I omitted that word from your post, and found that you spelled 100% of the words correct.

[Ramius]

First off, let me say that I ask these from a point of complete political neutrality. 

 

1.  Why is every Democrat automatically branded a "liberal"?

 

2.  Why is it that if you question the management of the "War on Terror" people accuse you of being un-American and not supporting the troops.

 

3.  Why do people want to portray Conservatives as evil?

 

4.  WTF has happened to legitimate debate on the issues?

 

5.  Am I the only one that feels like they need to take a shower after they watch election  coverage?

826840[/snapback]

 

Not really sure, but i am with you on #5. Elections have become sickening. Its no longer which candidate is more qualified, its lets throw crap about the other side. The partisanship in this nation is downright gross.

 

Heres your typical florida campaign commercial.

"Hi, i am candidate A. I am going to fix insurance problems. Candidate B sucks. B smoked a cigarette in 8th grade, that means he's unfit to run the state. B is as ass and doesnt know what he's doing. B sucks because he is from the other party. Dont vote for B. "

[Bungee Jumper]

I omitted that word from your post, and found that you spelled 100% of the words correct.

826963[/snapback]

 

But you can't omit it, because it's heritable...

[Alaska Darin]

First off, let me say that I ask these from a point of complete political neutrality. 

 

1.  Why is every Democrat automatically branded a "liberal"?

Because they are. It really is that simple. You align yourself with that party of thieves and their agenda, you're a liberal.

 

2.  Why is it that if you question the management of the "War on Terror" people accuse you of being un-American and not supporting the troops.

Because sloganeering rules and the vast majority of people are so ignorant they can't even define the word.

 

3.  Why do people want to portray Conservatives as evil?

Conservatives aren't evil. Republicans are. Mostly because they aren't at all conservative.

 

4.  WTF has happened to legitimate debate on the issues?

What's in it for me? That's the only question anyone actually cares about. Has nothing to do with the good of the country.

5.  Am I the only one that feels like they need to take a shower after they watch election  coverage?

826840[/snapback]

I'd say no, but I'd have to actually watch that crap.

[Orton's Arm]

I didn't spell it wrong, I just regressed it toward the mean.

826932[/snapback]

You're still unable to understand how measurement error can cause regression toward the mean? Let me spell things out in simpler terms.

 

Example 1: consider a population where everyone's I.Q. is exactly 100. But the I.Q. test is error-prone, with some people getting lucky (a score that's 10 points higher than it should be) or unlucky (a score that's 10 points too low). Suppose you were to look just at the people who scored 110 on that I.Q. test. Suppose you were to ask them to take a retest. Their scores would completely regress to the mean. That is, the average retest score would be 100, because in the retest the number of lucky and unlucky people would balance each other out.

 

Example 2: Consider a population with a bell-curve (Gaussian) distribution of I.Q.s and the same error-prone I.Q. test described above. Any individual person is equally likely to get lucky or unlucky on this I.Q. test. Suppose for example you're looking at those who scored 140 on the I.Q. test. You know that a certain percentage (say 20%) of the people with I.Q.s of 150 will get unlucky and appear to have an I.Q. of 140. You know that a certain percentage (20% for example) of the people with an I.Q. of 130 will get lucky and appear to have an I.Q. of 140. Because the overall population is normally distributed with an average I.Q. of 100, the number of people with an I.Q. of 130 will be a lot larger than the number of people with I.Q.s of 150. 20% of a large number (the population size for I.Q.s of 130) is a lot bigger than 20% of a small number (the population size for people with I.Q.s of 150). The lucky 130s will outnumber the unlucky 150s. Therefore, the people who scored 140 on that test are, on average, less intelligent than their 140 score will indicate. Should that group ever be asked to take a retest, the presence of all those unlucky 130s will make itself felt. The second time around, lucky and unlucky people will balance each other out, and the measured score will more truly indicate that group's potential.

 

Example 3: Consider a population with a bell-curve distribution of I.Q.s, and an error-prone I.Q. test that produces normally distributed results centered around the true mean. That is, if you were to take the I.Q. test 1000 times, your scores would vary. Your average score would be your true I.Q. 64% of your scores would be within one standard deviation of the mean, 95% within about two standard deviations, etc.

 

The logic here is the same as in example 2. Consider the population of those who scored a 140 on the test. That group will contain more lucky people with true I.Q.s of 130, 135, etc. than unlucky people with I.Q.s of 145 or 150. This is because there are more people with I.Q.s of 130, available for getting lucky, than there are of people with I.Q.s of 150 who are available to get unlucky. Once again, the people whose I.Q.s were measured to be 140 will, on average, have I.Q.s that are somewhat lower. Measure them a second time, and now you'll find out the true average I.Q. of that particular group of people. That population will appear to regress toward the mean.

[Bungee Jumper]

You're still unable to understand how measurement error can cause regression toward the mean? Let me spell things out in simpler terms.

 

Example 1: consider a population where everyone's I.Q. is exactly 100. But the I.Q. test is error-prone, with some people getting lucky (a score that's 10 points higher than it should be) or unlucky (a score that's 10 points too low). Suppose you were to look just at the people who scored 110 on that I.Q. test. Suppose you were to ask them to take a retest. Their scores would completely regress to the mean. That is, the average retest score would be 100, because in the retest the number of lucky and unlucky people would balance each other out.

 

Example 2: Consider a population with a bell-curve (Gaussian) distribution of I.Q.s and the same error-prone I.Q. test described above. Any individual person is equally likely to get lucky or unlucky on this I.Q. test. Suppose for example you're looking at those who scored 140 on the I.Q. test. You know that a certain percentage (say 20%) of the people with I.Q.s of 150 will get unlucky and appear to have an I.Q. of 140. You know that a certain percentage (20% for example) of the people with an I.Q. of 130 will get lucky and appear to have an I.Q. of 140. Because the overall population is normally distributed with an average I.Q. of 100, the number of people with an I.Q. of 130 will be a lot larger than the number of people with I.Q.s of 150. 20% of a large number (the population size for I.Q.s of 130) is a lot bigger than 20% of a small number (the population size for people with I.Q.s of 150). The lucky 130s will outnumber the unlucky 150s. Therefore, the people who scored 140 on that test are, on average, less intelligent than their 140 score will indicate. Should that group ever be asked to take a retest, the presence of all those unlucky 130s will make itself felt. The second time around, lucky and unlucky people will balance each other out, and the measured score will more truly indicate that group's potential.

 

Example 3: Consider a population with a bell-curve distribution of I.Q.s, and an error-prone I.Q. test that produces normally distributed results centered around the true mean. That is, if you were to take the I.Q. test 1000 times, your scores would vary. Your average score would be your true I.Q. 64% of your scores would be within one standard deviation of the mean, 95% within about two standard deviations, etc.

 

The logic here is the same as in example 2. Consider the population of those who scored a 140 on the test. That group will contain more lucky people with true I.Q.s of 130, 135, etc. than unlucky people with I.Q.s of 145 or 150. This is because there are more people with I.Q.s of 130, available for getting lucky, than there are of people with I.Q.s of 150 who are available to get unlucky. Once again, the people whose I.Q.s were measured to be 140 will, on average, have I.Q.s that are somewhat lower. Measure them a second time, and now you'll find out the true average I.Q. of that particular group of people. That population will appear to regress toward the mean.

827026[/snapback]

 

 

Jesus Christ. You're so !@#$ing dumb, you can't even define "average" properly.

 

And you got it backwards. Your example would illustrate deviation AWAY FROM the mean.

[MattyT]

You're still unable to understand how measurement error can cause regression toward the mean? Let me spell things out in simpler terms.

 

Example 1: consider a population where everyone's I.Q. is exactly 100. But the I.Q. test is error-prone, with some people getting lucky (a score that's 10 points higher than it should be) or unlucky (a score that's 10 points too low). Suppose you were to look just at the people who scored 110 on that I.Q. test. Suppose you were to ask them to take a retest. Their scores would completely regress to the mean. That is, the average retest score would be 100, because in the retest the number of lucky and unlucky people would balance each other out.

 

Example 2: Consider a population with a bell-curve (Gaussian) distribution of I.Q.s and the same error-prone I.Q. test described above. Any individual person is equally likely to get lucky or unlucky on this I.Q. test. Suppose for example you're looking at those who scored 140 on the I.Q. test. You know that a certain percentage (say 20%) of the people with I.Q.s of 150 will get unlucky and appear to have an I.Q. of 140. You know that a certain percentage (20% for example) of the people with an I.Q. of 130 will get lucky and appear to have an I.Q. of 140. Because the overall population is normally distributed with an average I.Q. of 100, the number of people with an I.Q. of 130 will be a lot larger than the number of people with I.Q.s of 150. 20% of a large number (the population size for I.Q.s of 130) is a lot bigger than 20% of a small number (the population size for people with I.Q.s of 150). The lucky 130s will outnumber the unlucky 150s. Therefore, the people who scored 140 on that test are, on average, less intelligent than their 140 score will indicate. Should that group ever be asked to take a retest, the presence of all those unlucky 130s will make itself felt. The second time around, lucky and unlucky people will balance each other out, and the measured score will more truly indicate that group's potential.

 

Example 3: Consider a population with a bell-curve distribution of I.Q.s, and an error-prone I.Q. test that produces normally distributed results centered around the true mean. That is, if you were to take the I.Q. test 1000 times, your scores would vary. Your average score would be your true I.Q. 64% of your scores would be within one standard deviation of the mean, 95% within about two standard deviations, etc.

 

The logic here is the same as in example 2. Consider the population of those who scored a 140 on the test. That group will contain more lucky people with true I.Q.s of 130, 135, etc. than unlucky people with I.Q.s of 145 or 150. This is because there are more people with I.Q.s of 130, available for getting lucky, than there are of people with I.Q.s of 150 who are available to get unlucky. Once again, the people whose I.Q.s were measured to be 140 will, on average, have I.Q.s that are somewhat lower. Measure them a second time, and now you'll find out the true average I.Q. of that particular group of people. That population will appear to regress toward the mean.

827026[/snapback]

OMFG.....PLEASE END THIS STUPID FUGGIN WASTE OF TIME!!!

[Ramius]

You're still unable to understand how measurement error can cause regression toward the mean? Let me spell things out in simpler terms.

 

Example 1: consider a population where everyone's I.Q. is exactly 100. But the I.Q. test is error-prone, with some people getting lucky (a score that's 10 points higher than it should be) or unlucky (a score that's 10 points too low). Suppose you were to look just at the people who scored 110 on that I.Q. test. Suppose you were to ask them to take a retest. Their scores would completely regress to the mean. That is, the average retest score would be 100, because in the retest the number of lucky and unlucky people would balance each other out.

 

Example 2: Consider a population with a bell-curve (Gaussian) distribution of I.Q.s and the same error-prone I.Q. test described above. Any individual person is equally likely to get lucky or unlucky on this I.Q. test. Suppose for example you're looking at those who scored 140 on the I.Q. test. You know that a certain percentage (say 20%) of the people with I.Q.s of 150 will get unlucky and appear to have an I.Q. of 140. You know that a certain percentage (20% for example) of the people with an I.Q. of 130 will get lucky and appear to have an I.Q. of 140. Because the overall population is normally distributed with an average I.Q. of 100, the number of people with an I.Q. of 130 will be a lot larger than the number of people with I.Q.s of 150. 20% of a large number (the population size for I.Q.s of 130) is a lot bigger than 20% of a small number (the population size for people with I.Q.s of 150). The lucky 130s will outnumber the unlucky 150s. Therefore, the people who scored 140 on that test are, on average, less intelligent than their 140 score will indicate. Should that group ever be asked to take a retest, the presence of all those unlucky 130s will make itself felt. The second time around, lucky and unlucky people will balance each other out, and the measured score will more truly indicate that group's potential.

 

Example 3: Consider a population with a bell-curve distribution of I.Q.s, and an error-prone I.Q. test that produces normally distributed results centered around the true mean. That is, if you were to take the I.Q. test 1000 times, your scores would vary. Your average score would be your true I.Q. 64% of your scores would be within one standard deviation of the mean, 95% within about two standard deviations, etc.

 

The logic here is the same as in example 2. Consider the population of those who scored a 140 on the test. That group will contain more lucky people with true I.Q.s of 130, 135, etc. than unlucky people with I.Q.s of 145 or 150. This is because there are more people with I.Q.s of 130, available for getting lucky, than there are of people with I.Q.s of 150 who are available to get unlucky. Once again, the people whose I.Q.s were measured to be 140 will, on average, have I.Q.s that are somewhat lower. Measure them a second time, and now you'll find out the true average I.Q. of that particular group of people. That population will appear to regress toward the mean.

827026[/snapback]

 

saying something that is completely and utterly wrong repeatedly isnt going to make it right.

[Bungee Jumper]

saying something that is completely and utterly wrong repeatedly isnt going to make it right.

827069[/snapback]

 

But it will make it average, hence true, as the repeated error causes it to regress towards the mean...

[Orton's Arm]

First off, let me say that I ask these from a point of complete political neutrality. 

 

1.  Why is every Democrat automatically branded a "liberal"?

Because there are very few conservative Democrats left.

2.  Why is it that if you question the management of the "War on Terror" people accuse you of being un-American and not supporting the troops.

Because many soldiers don't want to accept the possibility that they're risking their lives for nothing. They've been told (rightly or wrongly) that there's a very good reason for what they're being asked to do.

3.  Why do people want to portray Conservatives as evil?

Because many people are more easily led by social tactics such as namecalling than they are by information and logic.

4.  WTF has happened to legitimate debate on the issues?

See answer to #3. Plus, there are so many things competing for people's time. A simple message more easily penetrates this noise than a more nuanced view.

[BuckeyeBill]

First off, let me say that I ask these from a point of complete political neutrality. 

 

1.  Why is every Democrat automatically branded a "liberal"?

 

2.  Why is it that if you question the management of the "War on Terror" people accuse you of being un-American and not supporting the troops.

 

3.  Why do people want to portray Conservatives as evil?

 

4.  WTF has happened to legitimate debate on the issues?

 

5.  Am I the only one that feels like they need to take a shower after they watch election  coverage?

826840[/snapback]

1. Because most are (aside from southern Democrats), and the party is moving more liberal/socialist.

2. Questioning the war is no problem, stopping it prematurely is.

3. Because the people who call conservatives evil are evil.

4. Debate has been replaced by bickering... makes me sick.

[PastaJoe]

1. Because it's easier for someone who has a difference of opinion to use labels than actually have a civil debate on issues. That happens alot on this site; present a contrary view to the majority here and you'll get personally attacked.

2. See #1; the supporters of the Iraq invasion like to blur the lines and confuse people who don't pay attention to details like Iraq and 9/11 not being the same issue.

3. True conservatives aren't evil; they're for small gov't and limited interference in our private lives. Unfortunately many who call themselves conservative actually want to impose their lifestyles upon everyone else, instead of letting everyone make their own private life decisions. It's not evil, just hypocritical.

4. People hear but don't listen anymore. We live in a soundbyte society where you have to get a person's attention in the first 30 seconds.

5. What doesn't kill you will make you stronger, or so I've heard.

[Chilly]

First off, let me say that I ask these from a point of complete political neutrality. 

 

1.  Why is every Democrat automatically branded a "liberal"?

 

Political candidates have been further left and right along the spectrum. As the political candidates go, so do the labels. Since the candidates for the Democrats have been liberals lately, the whole party has been branded as liberal.

 

2.  Why is it that if you question the management of the "War on Terror" people accuse you of being un-American and not supporting the troops.

 

Its an easy attack that lets people avoid admitting that they are wrong. Its also largely along political lines that this happens. Most Democrats won't give you a hard time for questioning the management, but a lot of the Republican talking heads would. Its a way to deflect criticism and fire up their supporting base.

 

3.  Why do people want to portray Conservatives as evil?

 

Its the conservative ties to big business. The notion of big business as evil has been around since unions started to form, and are thus looked upon as not caring for individual interests. Since people associate big business with a lack of regard for individual people (thus "evil"), and they associate big business with conservatives, conservatives are then "evil" as they also do not look out for the little guy.

 

4.  WTF has happened to legitimate debate on the issues?

 

The media has realized that they can sell the news and politics as entertainment rather then just being a public service, and turn a damn good profit doing it. This has lead to an emphasis on sound bytes and talking heads, rather then actually making candidates give opinions and back them up.

 

As the media realized that politicians played them, and that the best way to introduce entertainment was not through the candidates themselves, they shortened the sound bytes and clips.

 

For every minute that a talking head spends on air, only 6 seconds of actual footage or opinion from politicians themselves are shown. Politicians have realized this, and thus are prone to give the media what they want, sound bytes, in order to obtain publicity.

 

We are very much a television society and this has played the largest part into breaking down actual debate on issues.

 

5.  Am I the only one that feels like they need to take a shower after they watch election  coverage?

826840[/snapback]

 

I'm sure you're not the only one. I only don't feel that way because I know what I'm getting into all the time, and I'm more or less studying it.