Hillary faints @ ground zero?

[realibrad]

She was opposed to gay marriage but she was for civil unions with the same rights as a married couple.

Oh, so you believe that saying gay people can get something, and its equal, but its separate. I mean this honestly, do you believe that is an okay position to have?

Again, she was against it, then supported something that would still be the lesser for gays, until she was for it. You cant claim you are for equality except for those you don't think should get equal treatment. The debate was not if the government should force churches to marry gays, but if the government should recognize marriage between homosexuals. She was on the wrong side of history for a long time, and thankfully changed her mind. It does nothing but disservice to do anything other than admit reality.

The reason the Republicans are so fucked right now is because they created a fantasy world. In that world, Trump seems like a good idea. If you don't want the left to do the same, then get your head out of your ass and admit reality.

 

[glenn1]

She was opposed to gay marriage but she was for civil unions with the same rights as a married couple.

You can say Hillary wasn't always pro gay or that she wasn't pushing for gay rights but you can't say she was pushing for an anti gay agenda, that's bull shit and you know it. Her positions must be viewed in the same way history is viewed and that's in context.

She was for whatever she thought would benefit her politically. When the beneficial position was being against SSM that's what she was. When she thought it was no longer beneficial she changed. It's 100% pure opportunism. Now you can say that's a typical trait of politicians or decide not to hold it against her if you choose but at least be honest with yourself about what kind of person Hillary is.

 

[ivwshane]

She was for whatever she thought would benefit her politically. When the beneficial position was being against SSM that's what she was. When she thought it was no longer beneficial she changed. It's 100% pure opportunism. Now you can say that's a typical trait of politicians or decide not to hold it against her if you choose but at least be honest with yourself about what kind of person Hillary is.

Yes, on this particular issue she was a public weather vain. Oh the horrors!

 

[realibrad]

Yes, on this particular issue she was a public weather vain. Oh the horrors!

Neat. You should explain that to this guy.

She pushed for anti gay laws? That's some good spin there.

She also didn't change on trade deals, she still supports them, she just doesn't support the TPP as it is now.

That dummy questioned that Hillary pushed for anti gay policies, and then stuck to that stance for over 10 years, until she decided it was time to change. You seem to understand that she was anti gay marriage, until she was not, but that other guy apparently does not.

 

[ivwshane]

Neat. You should explain that to this guy.



That dummy questioned that Hillary pushed for anti gay policies, and then stuck to that stance for over 10 years, until she decided it was time to change. You seem to understand that she was anti gay marriage, until she was not, but that other guy apparently does not.

You have some serious reading comprehension issues.

 

[agent00f]

The New England Journal of Medicine is also a prestigious medical journal with expertise in epidemiology. Again, they did a far larger study that looked at the situation in far more detail. In every way the NEJM study was better in its methodology and scope.

You will not or can not admit the Lancet numbers are far too high. You seem to believe that because it was an epidemiological it cannot be wrong. There is a better study, and it has been shown to you over and over. Why can you simply not admit that the 650,000 is too high?

The IFHS number you're quoting like some simpleton isn't directly comparable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Family_Health_Survey#400.2C000_excess_deaths.3F. Notice (or not, as history would predict) the directly comparable metric is within the lancet confidence interval.

You have zero clue how to read any academic paper or discussion, so it's best to stop pretending for your own sake.

 

[realibrad]

The IFHS number you're quoting like some simpleton isn't directly comparable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Family_Health_Survey#400.2C000_excess_deaths.3F. Notice (or not, as history would predict) the directly comparable metric is within the lancet confidence interval.

You have zero clue how to read any academic paper or discussion, so it's best to stop pretending for your own sake.

The Lancet study estimated over 600,000 violent deaths. The IFHS found just over 150,000 violent deaths. Those are the comparable metrics that can be found in both studies. But, there are other studies that also found much lower numbers for the same stat. Again, you will not or cannot admit you are wrong, so you will try to discredit me and not the evidence presented. Here is some more data for you.

Bet you still cant admit you are wrong, because... well that is what you do.

Comparison Of Pre-Iraq War Crude Death Rates
PLOS Medicine 2.89 per 1,000 2001-2003
2004 Lancet 5.0 per 1,000 2002-2003
2006 Lancet 5.5 per 1,000 2002-2003

Comparison Of Post-Invasion Crude Death Rates
PLOS Medicine 4.5 per 1,000 2003-2011
Iraq Family Health Survey 5.31 per 1,000 2003-2006
Opinion Research Business 10.3 per 1,000 2003-2006
2004 Lancet 12.3 per 1,000 2003-2004
2006 Lancet 13.3 per 1,000 2003-2006

Comparison Of Estimated Deaths
Iraq Living Conditions 24,000 2003-2004
2004 Lancet 98,000 2003-2004
Iraq Family Health Survey 151,000 2003-2006
2006 Lancet 654,965 2003-2006
Opinion Research Business 1,033,000 2003-2007
PLOS Medicine 460,000 2003-2011

Why is it that the Lancet studies were always at the upper end of everything?

You want to keep saying that I do not understand what I am looking at, because you have no way to dispute the findings.

 

[fskimospy]

I believe the 600,000 number for the Lancet is excess mortality, not violent deaths. Excess mortality is a much broader measure that includes things like deaths from inadequate access to health care, etc, in addition to violent deaths.

 

[agent00f]

I'm sure realibrad'll proclaim he knew that all along then state he's proven that 600k > 150k.

 

[realibrad]

I believe the 600,000 number for the Lancet is excess mortality, not violent deaths. Excess mortality is a much broader measure that includes things like deaths from inadequate access to health care, etc, in addition to violent deaths.

Excess deaths was 650,000+, but violent deaths was 601,027.

 

[realibrad]

I'm sure realibrad'll proclaim he knew that all along then state he's proven that 600k > 150k.

Well, from this comment, I can assure you that 600k is indeed larger than 150k. What is your point?

 

[agent00f]

Well, from this comment, I can assure you that 600k is indeed larger than 150k. What is your point?

I think you'll have to accept that this is one of those many things you'll never figure out.

 

[realibrad]

I think you'll have to accept that this is one of those many things you'll never figure out.

Still can't admit that the Lancet number has been shown to be an outlier when compared to larger more rigorous studies eh? Its hard to admit when you are wrong. Spy makes sure to point it out every damn time I am.

 

[agent00f]

Still can't admit that the Lancet number has been shown to be an outlier when compared to larger more rigorous studies eh? Its hard to admit when you are wrong. Spy makes sure to point it out every damn time I am.

You literally still cannot figure out what the numbers mean, even after it's been explained quite explicitly both this time and last. I've been told I'm pretty good at teaching, but I figure if dozens of educators have failed in the past I don't fancy my chances.

 

[realibrad]

You literally still cannot figure out what the numbers mean, even after it's been explained quite explicitly both this time and last. I've been told I'm pretty good at teaching, but I figure if dozens of educators have failed in the past I don't fancy my chances.

Lol, you keep trying to insult me to dismiss research papers that question the Lancet numbers.

 

[agent00f]

Lol, you keep trying to insult me to dismiss research papers that question the Lancet numbers.

That's because someone how has trouble with numbers can't possibly understand any real academic discussion, like why the IFHS fills missing data in HMG's from the IBC, a source which they themselves outestimate by a factor of 3.

 

[fskimospy]

That's because someone how has trouble with numbers can't possibly understand any real academic discussion, like why the IFHS fills missing data in HMG's from the IBC, a source which they themselves outestimate by a factor of 3.

I like to think that I'm pretty good at understanding academic discussion, and frankly realibrad has been incredibly patient with your bullshit. Why don't you try your explanation on me?

 

[agent00f]

I like to think that I'm pretty good at understanding academic discussion, and frankly realibrad has been incredibly patient with your bullshit. Why don't you try your explanation on me?

The John Hopkins paper figures similar excess deaths to what the IFHS would should if it bothered. The former somewhat blurs the line between deaths strictly from war, and what might be considered collateral damage (more specifically they ask for death certificates related to the conflict and tend to categorize these as violent). The greatest discrepancy between the two is deaths in high mortality governates, which the IFHS estimates anything they missed (rather frequent given that continued violence in these areas prevent accurate polling) using data from iraq body count, which grossly underestimates for rather obvious reasons. Another substantial source of disagreement is the estimates for pre-war mortality; their figures post-conflict tend to agree much more. These and other factors are actually discussed at the links realibrad had posted before, he just didn't understand what they mean.

 

[werepossum]

If it were just her attempt to stop an amendment then why did she say in 2007 she was "opposed" to gay marriage? If it was just a defense, then why did it take her so long to stop saying she was opposed? Maybe Bill did it to stop an amendment, but Hillary did not.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ry-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/

This is the problem with political people like yourself. You see criticism of your person as attacks, and criticism of the other side as pointing out problems. Hillary is not a great choice, expect when compared to someone like Trump. I don't believe in ignoring faults because it might help the other person. Also, keep in mind that this forum is far more left than right. In almost any other setting I am seen as someone firm to the left, but here I am often accused of being to the right. People look for signals and one big one is who you criticize. If you criticize the left, then you must be pro right.

Well said. Far too many people are either stupid enough to believe, or dishonest enough to pretend to believe, that their chosen side is always right and never does anything underhanded.

 

[agent00f]

Well said. Far too many people are either stupid enough to believe, or dishonest enough to pretend to believe, that their chosen side is always right and never does anything underhanded.

Clinton is a centrist same as obama. Centrists are characterized oddly enough by moving to the center of issues.

Evidently a lot of folks are too goddamn stupid to figure out what centrism implies, particularly ones who see themselves as some kind of political analyst.

 

[realibrad]

The John Hopkins paper figures similar excess deaths to what the IFHS would should if it bothered. The former somewhat blurs the line between deaths strictly from war, and what might be considered collateral damage (more specifically they ask for death certificates related to the conflict and tend to categorize these as violent). The greatest discrepancy between the two is deaths in high mortality governates, which the IFHS estimates anything they missed (rather frequent given that continued violence in these areas prevent accurate polling) using data from iraq body count, which grossly underestimates for rather obvious reasons. Another substantial source of disagreement is the estimates for pre-war mortality; their figures post-conflict tend to agree much more. These and other factors are actually discussed at the links realibrad had posted before, he just didn't understand what they mean.

The issue is that the Lancet study was far too small, used very few clusters, focused on areas where combat was more likely, and started with a drastically lower prewar mortality rate. That is why every study done after the Lancet study came back with numbers that were drastically lower. That is why the PLOS which did everything the Lancet study did but better came back with 400k over 8 years, instead of the 3 for the Lancet's study.

 

[Jhhnn]

Neat. You should explain that to this guy.



That dummy questioned that Hillary pushed for anti gay policies, and then stuck to that stance for over 10 years, until she decided it was time to change. You seem to understand that she was anti gay marriage, until she was not, but that other guy apparently does not.

Bullshit. Context is everything. She didn't push for anti-gay policies but rather policy that was more gay friendly than existed at the time. If it wasn't advocacy of what was a losing cause at the time, using the M word to describe gay unions, it certainly wasn't an attempt to hold the line or make it worse. This came from your own link-

https://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/120999sen-ny-dem.html

She advocated gays serving openly in the military in 1999 & advocated equality in everything but the marriage label. If it wasn't at the forefront of the effort for equality it wasn't far behind at all. That was sandwiched in between Repub efforts to amend the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1996 & 2004.

Try also to remember that 14 states still had sodomy laws on the books when the SCOTUS threw them all out in Lawrence v Texas in 2003 & that Repubs are officially opposed to gay marriage in 2016. From their platform-

Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a “judicial Putsch” — full of “silly extravagances” — that reduced “the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and
Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie.”

http://time.com/4411842/republican-platform-same-sex-marriage-abortion-guns-wall-street/

If you want to go on about the mote in Hillary's eye you might want to mention the beam in the opposition's eye as well. Or just concern troll on.

 

[agent00f]

The issue is that the Lancet study was far too small, used very few clusters, focused on areas where combat was more likely, and started with a drastically lower prewar mortality rate. That is why every study done after the Lancet study came back with numbers that were drastically lower. That is why the PLOS which did everything the Lancet study did but better came back with 400k over 8 years, instead of the 3 for the Lancet's study.

Funny all the studies largely agree on key measured figures and mostly produce different results due to internal procedural differences and everything else you still can't understand, yet you saw fit to cite foreign relations journals or whatever dumbshit link you can find to proclaim the one you don't like is "discredited".

Also pretty funny when not a day ago you still thought NEJM does the studies they publish, and now parrot "prewar mortality rate" (or "systematic") like you knew & were right about everything all along. I guess you must be that tropish genius the dumb teachers couldn't identify.

 

[realibrad]

Bullshit. Context is everything. She didn't push for anti-gay policies but rather policy that was more gay friendly than existed at the time. If it wasn't advocacy of what was a losing cause at the time, using the M word to describe gay unions, it certainly wasn't an attempt to hold the line or make it worse. This came from your own link-

https://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/120999sen-ny-dem.html

She advocated gays serving openly in the military in 1999 & advocated equality in everything but the marriage label. If it wasn't at the forefront of the effort for equality it wasn't far behind at all. That was sandwiched in between Repub efforts to amend the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1996 & 2004.

Try also to remember that 14 states still had sodomy laws on the books when the SCOTUS threw them all out in Lawrence v Texas in 2003 & that Repubs are officially opposed to gay marriage in 2016. From their platform-



http://time.com/4411842/republican-platform-same-sex-marriage-abortion-guns-wall-street/

If you want to go on about the mote in Hillary's eye you might want to mention the beam in the opposition's eye as well. Or just concern troll on.

First, Sodomy laws are for homosexual and heterosexuals fyi. Sodomy laws are not just for anal sex, but any sex act that is considered unnatural such as blow jobs. If you think it was just for gays, then explain why it was explicitly used for married couples where 100% were heterosexual.

She did not push for more friendly. Your best argument here is separate but equal civil unions which is a fucking slap in the face to gay people.

As for the link, she said to a bunch of gay people who paid her to be there that she thought DADT was not working. Gasp! What was it that she said again the very next month?

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. But I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship."

We cant give marriage to the gays because of the moral implications of marriage!
- Hillary Clinton

Face it, Hillary was anti gay marriage until she decided it was the popular thing to like. Just like with the TPP. Pointing this out should not mean I am suddenly pro Trump. His shit list is far worse and his current stance is far worse. You go down this rabbit hole because anything that makes your person seem bad needs to be defended. It should not be so hard to admit the flaws in your person. For me, its easy to admit the flaws in both.

 

[realibrad]

Funny all the studies largely agree on key measured figures and mostly produce different results due to internal procedural differences and everything else you still can't understand, yet you saw fit to cite foreign relations journals or whatever dumbshit link you can find to proclaim the one you don't like is "discredited".

Also pretty funny when not a day ago you still thought NEJM does the studies they publish, and now parrot "prewar mortality rate" (or "systematic") like you knew & were right about everything all along. I guess you must be that tropish genius the dumb teachers couldn't identify.

If everyone agreed on the key figured, then how is it that they get to drastically lower numbers? If all the metrics were about the same, then the sum should be the same, and they are not.