I'm sure my study is just as flawed as theirs, maybe more so. But I look at a lot of news and, read carefully, EVERYTHING I READ OR SAW EXCEPT FOX SAID THAT WORLD OPINION WAS AGAINST US. FOX WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT SAID WE HAD MAJOR SUPPORT IN THE WORLD.
"Let him live upon what belongs to him without wronging others, and accommodate his expense to his revenue."
Which, I thought you said, was still more than anyone else. Possibly put together...
no, I said I DON'T KNOW where it ranks in terms of actual money, but that it is LESS than anybody else in %GDP. my guess is it is somewhere in the middle in terms of actual money given.
as with most Americans, you severely overestimate what we give in foreign aid.
please read the posts before you respond.
-m
Last edited by epeemike81; 05-06-2004 at 05:44 PM.
Yes, yes, I know what a "study" is. You seem to think because the U. of Maryland has a study, it's the gospel truth, because they have "data".
I'm telling you what I saw and read. That's my data.
Do you think another institution could possibly come up with data refuting this outcome. I believe it happens all the time. Eggs are bad, eggs are good. Alcohol is bad, alcohol in moderation is good. Coffee is bad for you, coffee is good for you. Global warming, we're doomed, global warming just another repeating cycle. blah blah blah.
no, I don't take it as gospel. I do, however, take it as FAR more meaningful than anecdotal evidence from a single person (i.e. what you call "[your] data"). you think there's a contrary study?? find it, please.
I'm sure my study is just as flawed as theirs, maybe more so. But I look at a lot of news and, read carefully, EVERYTHING I READ OR SAW EXCEPT FOX SAID THAT WORLD OPINION WAS AGAINST US. FOX WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT SAID WE HAD MAJOR SUPPORT IN THE WORLD.
first off, if you actually think that how you interpret news is even CLOSE to as accurate as a survey in predicting how misleading news coverage is to the average american, you need to go back to school. I can recommend some good Stats books, if you like. secondly, given the number of times you've misrepresented/misremembered what I said on this thread, I'm VERY unimpressed with your ability to "read carefully".
-m
Last edited by epeemike81; 05-06-2004 at 05:44 PM.
The difference is, I'm not spouting as the gospel truth. Are you capable of understanding that? God, get one "study" in the hands of a zealot and a student at that, with such broad knowledge of the world, and there you go.
You obviously can't read either, you've attributed things to me I've never said.
For instance, I never said there was another study, I asked if you thought another study might come up with evidence to refute it and gave you examples of previous studies.
I'm telling what I saw and read. How many times do I have to say it?
"Let him live upon what belongs to him without wronging others, and accommodate his expense to his revenue."
points of interest: Americans estimate foreign aid at 20% of the budget. it's actually less than 1% of our budget, less than 0.1% of our GDP. Japan, btw, ranks first in foreign aid, so there goes your "we give more than the rest of the world combined" theory...
I'm still lookin' for a complete ranking in dollar amount.
You obviously can't read either, you've attributed things to me I've never said.
For instance, I never said there was another study, I asked if you thought another study might come up with evidence to refute it and gave you examples of previous studies.
God, this is getting tiresome. I never said that you said there was another study. My point was that the POSSIBLE existence of contrary evidence isn't a good reason to ignore evidence we have. if you want to refute, you have to FIND the contrary evidence. Do some research.
I'm telling what I saw and read. How many times do I have to say it?
And I'm telling you that what you personally got out of news coverage has very little relevance to how their coverage affected the public in general. how many times do I have to say it?
As for the unemployment issue, I suggest you look at the attached file. the real issue isn't what the current unemployment is, but the rate of change. as you can see from the following chart, during the last two years of Bush I, the rate increased fairly steadily and sharply, peaking at 7.8% in 1992. During ALL EIGHT YEARS of Clinton, the unemployment rate dove, reaching it's minimum at 3.9% during 2000 (the lowest percentage since 1970, btw), and beginning in 2001 (Bush II) started climbing again.
-m
Last edited by epeemike81; 05-06-2004 at 06:26 PM.
God, this is getting tiresome. I never said that you said there was another study. My point was that the POSSIBLE existence of contrary evidence isn't a good reason to ignore evidence we have. if you want to refute, you have to FIND the contrary evidence. Do some research.
And I'm telling you that what you personally got out of news coverage has very little relevance to how their coverage affected the public in general. how many times do I have to say it?
-m
I'm not refuting your study. All I said is, I know what I saw and read and so I don't buy into the study.
And regardless of your study, you have no real evidence of how coverage affected the public in general. One study doesn't make it so. Just like my personal experience doesn't make it so. Just like all the opposing studies I mentioned earlier and then some.
And it's no more "evidence" than the Gallup Poll of journalists who said they were, in the majority, liberally biased.
I could say you're buying into the "vast conservative media" conspiracy theory and have gone "off the deep end". But I have tried to refrain from insulting you personally. And I would appreciate the same consideration.
Unfortunately, I don't live on campus anymore and don't have all my reference materials handy. So, if you want to claim "victory" go right ahead.
"Let him live upon what belongs to him without wronging others, and accommodate his expense to his revenue."
As for the unemployment issue, I suggest you look at the attached file. the real issue isn't what the current unemployment is, but the rate of change. as you can see from the following chart, during the last two years of Bush I, the rate increased fairly steadily and sharply, peaking at 7.8% in 1992. During ALL EIGHT YEARS of Clinton, the unemployment rate dove, reaching it's minimum at 3.9% during 2000 (the lowest percentage since 1970, btw), and beginning in 2001 (Bush II) started climbing again.
-m
Good thing for Clinton, he didn't have a major economic disaster (the markets post 9/11) occur during his administration.
He was however in office during the start of the dot-com demise (1999-2000 and onward) which contributes somewhat to Bush's numbers, I'm sure. But, of course, I'm no expert, like you.
"Let him live upon what belongs to him without wronging others, and accommodate his expense to his revenue."
I'm not refuting your study. All I said is, I know what I saw and read and so I don't buy into the study.
And regardless of your study, you have no real evidence of how coverage affected the public in general. One study doesn't make it so. Just like my personal experience doesn't make it so. Just like all the opposing studies I mentioned earlier and then some.
Right...
first of all, while the study isn't, clearly, the be all and end all on the subject, it IS real evidence, and as such cannot simply be discounted because you happen to have had one of the less likely experiences. I've gambled at games of chance a number of times. I've never come out behind. should I thus not believe that the casino makes money because the aggregate is in their favor. after all, that's not my experience so I don't buy into the study.
And it's no more "evidence" than the Gallup Poll of journalists who said they were, in the majority, liberally biased.
This much is true, but it is important to note the scope of the poll. All the Gallup poll shows is that journalists BELIEVE themselves to be liberal, it says nothing about what they actually are, much as this poll simply says that the coverage created misconceptions in the public, no more, no less.
Unfortunately, I don't live on campus anymore and don't have all my reference materials handy. So, if you want to claim "victory" go right ahead.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that Google was only available on campus.
Good thing for Clinton, he didn't have a major economic disaster (the markets post 9/11) occur during his administration.
He was however in office during the start of the dot-com demise (1999-2000 and onward) which contributes somewhat to Bush's numbers, I'm sure. But, of course, I'm no expert, like you.
the economic effect of 9/11 has been DRAMATICALLY overestimated by this administration. They seem to think that they can tie that event to every issue they have and get a pass because of it. I, for one, resent that.
the economic effect of 9/11 has been DRAMATICALLY overestimated by this administration. They seem to think that they can tie that event to every issue they have and get a pass because of it. I, for one, resent that.-m
According to who, you?
"Let him live upon what belongs to him without wronging others, and accommodate his expense to his revenue."
among others, yes. Please do not whine about me speaking of that as "gospel truth". it isn't.
The bottom line is that the corporate scandals were much more important than the 9/11 attacks in terms of economic impact. while those WERE underway before Bush took office, members of this administration contributed to those in ways other than their current government posts.
-m
Last edited by epeemike81; 05-06-2004 at 07:17 PM.
The economic effect was pretty pronounced on my holdings, but they have begun to recover very nicely, thank you.
Do you have another study on this?
correlation != causation.
your holdings went down after 9/11. they were going down already BEFORE 9/11. the timing doesn't mean that 9/11 had dramatic impact on your holdings. And a dramatic impact on your holdings doesn't mean a dramatic impact on the whole of the economy.
as for having a study, there are a ton of them. The Bush administration, when it gives figures, has used the highest of these (not surprising. fairly standard, and I'm sure that some democrats have used the lowest to refute). there is a GAO review of the various studies and how accurate they are. you can prolly locate it on Google fairly quickly.
-m
Last edited by epeemike81; 05-06-2004 at 07:24 PM.
Originally Posted by Tireur 
