|
|
On September 12 2012 03:55 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 03:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 12 2012 03:35 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 12 2012 03:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:
gotta say, i think Catholics might break right this time and help put Romney over the top. would be nice to see my fellow Catholics finally start following the gdamn teachings of the Church (abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom, etc.) Haven't Catholics traditionally been opposed to such things (abortion & gay marriage)? How would this election be any different? Catholics are traditionally opposed to those things, but then they traditionally go out and support the politicians that try to enact those laws. also, for whatever reason, Catholics are more likely to support gay-marriage and abortion than other Christians... God, but i hope that changes soon... No, this is totally wrong. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_legal_abortionShow nested quote ++ Show Spoiler +Before the Roe v. Wade decision, the right-to-life movement in the U.S. consisted of lawyers, politicians, and doctors, almost all of whom were Catholic. The only coordinated opposition to abortion during the early 1970s came from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Family Life Bureau, also a Catholic organization. Mobilization of a wide-scale pro-life movement among Catholics began quickly after the Roe v. Wade decision with the creation of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). The NRLC also organized non-Catholics, eventually becoming the largest pro-life organization in the United States. Connie Paige has been quoted as having said that, "[t]he Roman Catholic Church created the right-to-life movement. Without the church, the movement would not exist as such today."[15 Show nested quote ++ Show Spoiler +Much of the pro-life movement in the United States and around the world finds support in the Roman Catholic Church, Christian right, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Church of England, the Anglican Church in North America, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).[31][32][33][34] However, the pro-life teachings of these denominations vary considerably. The Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church consider abortion to be immoral in all cases, but permit acts[citation needed] which indirectly result in the death of the fetus in the case where the mother's life is threatened. In Pope John Paul II's Letter to Families he simply stated the Roman Catholic Church's view on abortion and euthanasia: "Laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law."
i was talking about Catholics, not the Catholic Church. The Church is firmly, 100% against both gay marriage and abortion, I believe to the point of calling both: "intrinistic evil", as in, something that is always wrong, no matter what circumstances. however, many Catholic men and women (especially women) do not follow the Church's teachings about those issues, far more than other Christian groups.
so yeah, the Church is against it, but I wasn't talking about the Church, i was talking about the congregation.
On September 12 2012 03:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 03:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 12 2012 03:35 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 12 2012 03:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:
gotta say, i think Catholics might break right this time and help put Romney over the top. would be nice to see my fellow Catholics finally start following the gdamn teachings of the Church (abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom, etc.) Haven't Catholics traditionally been opposed to such things (abortion & gay marriage)? How would this election be any different? Catholics are traditionally opposed to those things, but then they traditionally go out and support the politicians that try to enact those laws. also, for whatever reason, Catholics are more likely to support gay-marriage and abortion than other Christians... God, but i hope that changes soon... There are two types of cathlics, a fairly liberal fairly tolerant left wing, and a more conserative wing. Biden and ryan are both catholics, just from the opposite wings of the church.
yeah, and only one type actually follows the teachings of the Church, but i guess that's kind of irrelevant for here... just a gripe i've had with my fellow Catholics for a long time now. tbh, i kinda wish the Church would start excommunicating people like Biden and Pelosi, but they never will, and i suppose its for the best that they don't
|
On September 12 2012 03:32 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 02:34 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2012 02:30 radiatoren wrote:On September 12 2012 02:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 12 2012 01:53 radiatoren wrote:On September 12 2012 00:41 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2012 00:35 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2012 00:16 xDaunt wrote:Just as a followup to the conversation about polling bias and why I wouldn't trust the polls right now (wait til the two weeks before the election), look at this WashPo/ABC poll. It shows a 49-48 split in favor of Obama. However, go look at the very last question that shows the composition of the sample: 37% independent, 33% democrats, 23% republican, 4% other, 3% don't know. I've always assumed that the purpose of polls was to try and propagate the idea that pollsters have a useful profession and should continue getting employment. Pay them and they'll give you a poll that shows anything. Doesn't in any way surprise me. Still, assuming that you understand their methodology and, in this case, their selection of respondents you can try and glean something from it. I don't know whether there's a concerted effort to kick out biased polls, I just know that there has been a systemic undersampling of republicans in polls. I highlighted the Washpo poll as a particularly egregious example. What a good is a poll that gives a 10% sampling bias to democrats? I'm trying to find it, but I'm pretty sure that I just saw an article in the past couple weeks that the number of registered republican voters has outgrown registered democrats. Plus, it has always been the case that registered republicans are more likely to vote, which is why polls of "likely voters" are more accurate than those of "registered voters." There is something to be said about removing biases introduced by the people you choose to poll. However, ~1000 people are too small a sample to carry any significance in itself for a country with 315 million inhabitants or even only counting swing states of about 76 millions. I take it, that they use a lot of assumptions to spice up the statistical values of the test, but exactly these assumptions are what is killing the credibility like KwarK suggests In other words: The poll is invalid from the get go due to too few participants. Had it been for a single state, like North Carolina, 1000 would be a decent poll, but that is not the case here. The size of the population makes no difference. I use the notation that Wikipedia uses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergeometric_distributionThe exact standard error is found by considering the variance of a X/n, where X is Hypergeometric. This variance is then (p(1-p)/n)*((N-n)/(N-1)), the latter factor is call the finite population correction and is often dropped for simplicity because it makes little difference. The standard error of a poll is then sqrt(p(1-p)*(f-1)/(N-1)), where f = n/N is the sampling fraction. From this, it's obvious that if N is large (like 311.5M), the factor (f-1)/(N-1) is small (virtually 0), so that the size of the sample compared to the population makes virtually no difference to the standard error of the poll. If you don't believe my algebra here's a numerical example. In a poll about who you're voting for, the proportion of people supporting a candidate is close to 50%, so take p = 0.5, we sample n = 1000 people from a population of N = 9.7 million (the population of North Carolina), the standard error is then 1.58106%. For the US, the population is N = 311.6 million, and the standard error is 1.58113%, virtually unchanged. No, I am not talking about the statistical effect in itself. I am saying that the biases from the people you choose will get drowned out. With a smaller population, you get a more homogenous population and therefore a smaller amount of different population groups with a real effect on the result of the election. My understanding of the sample selection process is that the pollsters tinker with the sample to create a sample that is representative of the population. These aren't just straight surveys that are taken of random people. There are a lot of adjustments involved. I imagine if that were the case, they wouldn't ask 10% more Democrats than Republicans; that doesn't add up, especially since America is a country with twice as many conservatives than liberals.
The US is about 40% temperamental conservatives, 40% temperamental moderates, 20% temperamental liberals.
The Republican base is almost entirely made up of conservatives, with a few moderates sprinkled in, and very few liberal "Rockefeller Republicans" who haven't already switched over to the Democratic Party.
The Democratic base, on the other hand, is a fractured mix of liberals, moderates, and even many conservatives -- but the types of conservatives who might be a little uncomfortable with the GOP's white Christian nationalism (ie, a lot of blacks and Latinos/immigrants fit into this category of conservative Democrats). Loads of temperamental conservatives from the old New Deal coalition have switched over to the Republican Party, particularly in the South.
This is a decent summary of ideological and partisan leanings in this country:
http://www.people-press.org/typology/
|
On September 12 2012 04:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 03:55 farvacola wrote:On September 12 2012 03:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 12 2012 03:35 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 12 2012 03:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:
gotta say, i think Catholics might break right this time and help put Romney over the top. would be nice to see my fellow Catholics finally start following the gdamn teachings of the Church (abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom, etc.) Haven't Catholics traditionally been opposed to such things (abortion & gay marriage)? How would this election be any different? Catholics are traditionally opposed to those things, but then they traditionally go out and support the politicians that try to enact those laws. also, for whatever reason, Catholics are more likely to support gay-marriage and abortion than other Christians... God, but i hope that changes soon... No, this is totally wrong. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_legal_abortion+ Show Spoiler +Before the Roe v. Wade decision, the right-to-life movement in the U.S. consisted of lawyers, politicians, and doctors, almost all of whom were Catholic. The only coordinated opposition to abortion during the early 1970s came from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Family Life Bureau, also a Catholic organization. Mobilization of a wide-scale pro-life movement among Catholics began quickly after the Roe v. Wade decision with the creation of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). The NRLC also organized non-Catholics, eventually becoming the largest pro-life organization in the United States. Connie Paige has been quoted as having said that, "[t]he Roman Catholic Church created the right-to-life movement. Without the church, the movement would not exist as such today."[15 + Show Spoiler +Much of the pro-life movement in the United States and around the world finds support in the Roman Catholic Church, Christian right, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Church of England, the Anglican Church in North America, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).[31][32][33][34] However, the pro-life teachings of these denominations vary considerably. The Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church consider abortion to be immoral in all cases, but permit acts[citation needed] which indirectly result in the death of the fetus in the case where the mother's life is threatened. In Pope John Paul II's Letter to Families he simply stated the Roman Catholic Church's view on abortion and euthanasia: "Laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law." i was talking about Catholics, not the Catholic Church. The Church is firmly, 100% against both gay marriage and abortion, I believe to the point of calling both: "intrinistic evil", as in, something that is always wrong, no matter what circumstances. however, many Catholic men and women (especially women) do not follow the Church's teachings about those issues, far more than other Christian groups. so yeah, the Church is against it, but I wasn't talking about the Church, i was talking about the congregation. Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 03:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 12 2012 03:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 12 2012 03:35 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 12 2012 03:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:
gotta say, i think Catholics might break right this time and help put Romney over the top. would be nice to see my fellow Catholics finally start following the gdamn teachings of the Church (abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom, etc.) Haven't Catholics traditionally been opposed to such things (abortion & gay marriage)? How would this election be any different? Catholics are traditionally opposed to those things, but then they traditionally go out and support the politicians that try to enact those laws. also, for whatever reason, Catholics are more likely to support gay-marriage and abortion than other Christians... God, but i hope that changes soon... There are two types of cathlics, a fairly liberal fairly tolerant left wing, and a more conserative wing. Biden and ryan are both catholics, just from the opposite wings of the church. yeah, and only one type actually follows the teachings of the Church, but i guess that's kind of irrelevant for here... just a gripe i've had with my fellow Catholics for a long time now. tbh, i kinda wish the Church would start excommunicating people like Biden and Pelosi, but they never will, and i suppose its for the best that they don't
they would take massive losses in europe, actually they asllready are because they are so backwards.
|
On September 12 2012 03:55 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 03:32 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 12 2012 02:34 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2012 02:30 radiatoren wrote:On September 12 2012 02:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 12 2012 01:53 radiatoren wrote:On September 12 2012 00:41 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2012 00:35 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2012 00:16 xDaunt wrote:Just as a followup to the conversation about polling bias and why I wouldn't trust the polls right now (wait til the two weeks before the election), look at this WashPo/ABC poll. It shows a 49-48 split in favor of Obama. However, go look at the very last question that shows the composition of the sample: 37% independent, 33% democrats, 23% republican, 4% other, 3% don't know. I've always assumed that the purpose of polls was to try and propagate the idea that pollsters have a useful profession and should continue getting employment. Pay them and they'll give you a poll that shows anything. Doesn't in any way surprise me. Still, assuming that you understand their methodology and, in this case, their selection of respondents you can try and glean something from it. I don't know whether there's a concerted effort to kick out biased polls, I just know that there has been a systemic undersampling of republicans in polls. I highlighted the Washpo poll as a particularly egregious example. What a good is a poll that gives a 10% sampling bias to democrats? I'm trying to find it, but I'm pretty sure that I just saw an article in the past couple weeks that the number of registered republican voters has outgrown registered democrats. Plus, it has always been the case that registered republicans are more likely to vote, which is why polls of "likely voters" are more accurate than those of "registered voters." There is something to be said about removing biases introduced by the people you choose to poll. However, ~1000 people are too small a sample to carry any significance in itself for a country with 315 million inhabitants or even only counting swing states of about 76 millions. I take it, that they use a lot of assumptions to spice up the statistical values of the test, but exactly these assumptions are what is killing the credibility like KwarK suggests In other words: The poll is invalid from the get go due to too few participants. Had it been for a single state, like North Carolina, 1000 would be a decent poll, but that is not the case here. The size of the population makes no difference. I use the notation that Wikipedia uses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergeometric_distributionThe exact standard error is found by considering the variance of a X/n, where X is Hypergeometric. This variance is then (p(1-p)/n)*((N-n)/(N-1)), the latter factor is call the finite population correction and is often dropped for simplicity because it makes little difference. The standard error of a poll is then sqrt(p(1-p)*(f-1)/(N-1)), where f = n/N is the sampling fraction. From this, it's obvious that if N is large (like 311.5M), the factor (f-1)/(N-1) is small (virtually 0), so that the size of the sample compared to the population makes virtually no difference to the standard error of the poll. If you don't believe my algebra here's a numerical example. In a poll about who you're voting for, the proportion of people supporting a candidate is close to 50%, so take p = 0.5, we sample n = 1000 people from a population of N = 9.7 million (the population of North Carolina), the standard error is then 1.58106%. For the US, the population is N = 311.6 million, and the standard error is 1.58113%, virtually unchanged. No, I am not talking about the statistical effect in itself. I am saying that the biases from the people you choose will get drowned out. With a smaller population, you get a more homogenous population and therefore a smaller amount of different population groups with a real effect on the result of the election. My understanding of the sample selection process is that the pollsters tinker with the sample to create a sample that is representative of the population. These aren't just straight surveys that are taken of random people. There are a lot of adjustments involved. I imagine if that were the case, they wouldn't ask 10% more Democrats than Republicans; that doesn't add up, especially since America is a country with twice as many conservatives than liberals. I'm always puzzled by the huge number of conservative news organizations and people willing to use those opinion laden "stories" as evidence of some nonexistant or overblown trend.
Gallup is generally recognized to be a non-partisan polling organization.
|
On September 12 2012 04:41 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 04:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 12 2012 03:55 farvacola wrote:On September 12 2012 03:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 12 2012 03:35 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 12 2012 03:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:
gotta say, i think Catholics might break right this time and help put Romney over the top. would be nice to see my fellow Catholics finally start following the gdamn teachings of the Church (abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom, etc.) Haven't Catholics traditionally been opposed to such things (abortion & gay marriage)? How would this election be any different? Catholics are traditionally opposed to those things, but then they traditionally go out and support the politicians that try to enact those laws. also, for whatever reason, Catholics are more likely to support gay-marriage and abortion than other Christians... God, but i hope that changes soon... No, this is totally wrong. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_legal_abortion+ Show Spoiler +Before the Roe v. Wade decision, the right-to-life movement in the U.S. consisted of lawyers, politicians, and doctors, almost all of whom were Catholic. The only coordinated opposition to abortion during the early 1970s came from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Family Life Bureau, also a Catholic organization. Mobilization of a wide-scale pro-life movement among Catholics began quickly after the Roe v. Wade decision with the creation of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). The NRLC also organized non-Catholics, eventually becoming the largest pro-life organization in the United States. Connie Paige has been quoted as having said that, "[t]he Roman Catholic Church created the right-to-life movement. Without the church, the movement would not exist as such today."[15 + Show Spoiler +Much of the pro-life movement in the United States and around the world finds support in the Roman Catholic Church, Christian right, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Church of England, the Anglican Church in North America, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).[31][32][33][34] However, the pro-life teachings of these denominations vary considerably. The Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church consider abortion to be immoral in all cases, but permit acts[citation needed] which indirectly result in the death of the fetus in the case where the mother's life is threatened. In Pope John Paul II's Letter to Families he simply stated the Roman Catholic Church's view on abortion and euthanasia: "Laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law." i was talking about Catholics, not the Catholic Church. The Church is firmly, 100% against both gay marriage and abortion, I believe to the point of calling both: "intrinistic evil", as in, something that is always wrong, no matter what circumstances. however, many Catholic men and women (especially women) do not follow the Church's teachings about those issues, far more than other Christian groups. so yeah, the Church is against it, but I wasn't talking about the Church, i was talking about the congregation. On September 12 2012 03:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 12 2012 03:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 12 2012 03:35 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 12 2012 03:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:
gotta say, i think Catholics might break right this time and help put Romney over the top. would be nice to see my fellow Catholics finally start following the gdamn teachings of the Church (abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom, etc.) Haven't Catholics traditionally been opposed to such things (abortion & gay marriage)? How would this election be any different? Catholics are traditionally opposed to those things, but then they traditionally go out and support the politicians that try to enact those laws. also, for whatever reason, Catholics are more likely to support gay-marriage and abortion than other Christians... God, but i hope that changes soon... There are two types of cathlics, a fairly liberal fairly tolerant left wing, and a more conserative wing. Biden and ryan are both catholics, just from the opposite wings of the church. yeah, and only one type actually follows the teachings of the Church, but i guess that's kind of irrelevant for here... just a gripe i've had with my fellow Catholics for a long time now. tbh, i kinda wish the Church would start excommunicating people like Biden and Pelosi, but they never will, and i suppose its for the best that they don't they would take massive losses in europe, actually they asllready are because they are so backwards.
Probably also because, historically, the religious position on abortion hasn't been so one-sided.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/
In the US, Catholics may also be more wary about breaching the separation of church and state, since it wasn't that long ago that Catholicism itself was frowned upon by the Protestant majority in this country. (this would probably apply more to gay marriage than to abortion, since the latter is seen as an issue of life-or-death, while the former is about who gets what legal rights)
|
On September 12 2012 04:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i kinda wish the Church would start excommunicating people like Biden and Pelosi, but they never will, and i suppose its for the best that they don't
I'd sooner have them excommunicated from government.
Also, Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate and former Republican governor of New Mexico, just started an AMA (ask me anything) on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/zq0ow/i_am_gov_gary_johnson_the_libertarian_candidate/
|
On September 12 2012 04:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i kinda wish the Church would start excommunicating people like Biden and Pelosi, but they never will, and i suppose its for the best that they don't
It probably is for the best because I dont think there is a single politition in the US who actually follows the exact teachings of church from there opinion on death penalty and abortion to there opinions on wars and helping the poor and a myriad of other things that are rarely obeyed by your typical catholic.
|
On September 12 2012 05:36 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 04:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i kinda wish the Church would start excommunicating people like Biden and Pelosi, but they never will, and i suppose its for the best that they don't It probably is for the best because I dont think there is a single politition in the US who actually follows the exact teachings of church from there opinion on death penalty and abortion to there opinions on wars and helping the poor and a myriad of other things that are rarely obeyed by your typical catholic.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Church started excommunicating people. I don't know if anyone here is familiar with how Catholicism is trending in the United States, but they are on a super-conservative track at a diocesan level.
|
On September 12 2012 05:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 05:36 Adreme wrote:On September 12 2012 04:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i kinda wish the Church would start excommunicating people like Biden and Pelosi, but they never will, and i suppose its for the best that they don't It probably is for the best because I dont think there is a single politition in the US who actually follows the exact teachings of church from there opinion on death penalty and abortion to there opinions on wars and helping the poor and a myriad of other things that are rarely obeyed by your typical catholic. I wouldn't be surprised if the Church started excommunicating people. I don't know if anyone here is familiar with how Catholicism is trending in the United States, but they are on a super-conservative track at a diocesan level.
It would be hilariously bad PR if the Catholic Church just starts excommunicating politicians.
Politicians not following Church doctrine? KICK THEM OUT!
Priests sexually assaulting children? No problem, move the priest to another church.
Let's also not forget that this was one of the original fears of Catholics getting elected as President. Would he have to take orders from the Pope or risk ex-communication?
|
On September 12 2012 05:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 05:36 Adreme wrote:On September 12 2012 04:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i kinda wish the Church would start excommunicating people like Biden and Pelosi, but they never will, and i suppose its for the best that they don't It probably is for the best because I dont think there is a single politition in the US who actually follows the exact teachings of church from there opinion on death penalty and abortion to there opinions on wars and helping the poor and a myriad of other things that are rarely obeyed by your typical catholic. I wouldn't be surprised if the Church started excommunicating people. I don't know if anyone here is familiar with how Catholicism is trending in the United States, but they are on a super-conservative track at a diocesan level.
I'd be surprised. I'm more expecting some strongly worded statement calling for their confession =). Eternal damnation is pretty extreme.
|
United States13896 Posts
There's a world of difference between the official stances of the Catholic church and the social beliefs of many people who would identify themselves as Catholic.
One of the many reasons the Catholic Church is seeing congregations shrink all over the US. There are something like 25 million non-practicing Catholics in this country, and I fall into that group. I think if you talk to these people then you'll find that their beliefs are commonly not in sync with those the Vatican tells local Bishops and Archbishops to uphold at your average Sunday mass.
In my experience those Catholics who practice their faith typically lean to the right, those that don't are more moderate or left leaning.
|
On September 12 2012 06:10 p4NDemik wrote:
There's a world of difference between the official stances of the Catholic church and the social beliefs of many people who would identify themselves as Catholic.
One of the many reasons the Catholic Church is seeing congregations shrink all over the US. There are something like 25 million non-practicing Catholics in this country, and I fall into that group. I think if you talk to these people then you'll find that their beliefs are commonly not in sync with those the Vatican tells local Bishops and Archbishops to uphold at your average Sunday mass.
In my experience those Catholics who practice their faith typically lean to the right, those that don't are more moderate or left leaning.
Yes, that's exactly right. What I am saying is that the Catholic Church in the US has been demonstrably less willing to compromise with the moderate and liberal Catholics. At the diocesan level, the Church is consciously recasting itself as a super conservative institution, in the same mold as evangelicals or even Mormons.
|
On September 11 2012 20:54 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 20:34 Silidons wrote:On September 11 2012 15:18 Defacer wrote:If anyone is in the mood to read something extremely depressing ... The Deafness Before the Storm: Bush White House ignored adamant warnings from CIA of imminent Al-Qaeda attackOn April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real. Dick Cheny knew that terrorists had taken over planes and did nothing to stop it + Show Spoiler +Fun fact is that they did not include his testimony in the 9-11 report ^_^ You realize that the video you linked to directly contradicts your assertion? They're talking about the order to shoot the plane down, and Mineta clearly recalls Cheney saying: Show nested quote +And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" The order therefore was to shoot the plane(s) down. They simply did not react/reach them in time. This claim by conspiracy theorists that Cheney deliberately let the hijackers hit the towers has been debunked countless times.
Why the hell would they be saying "30 miles out, 20 miles out, 10 miles out" and at the 10 miles out mark, ask if the orders stand? That completely goes against if the initial orders were to shoot them down. Why the fuck would how far the miles out are change the order if it was to shoot? That doesn't make any sense.
It's like you telling me to shoot someone who is running at you with a knife, and then when they're 10 feet away from you ask if you still want me to shoot...it only makes sense if you had asked me to NOT shoot, then you realize how close they now are.
|
On September 12 2012 05:23 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 03:55 aksfjh wrote:On September 12 2012 03:32 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 12 2012 02:34 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2012 02:30 radiatoren wrote:On September 12 2012 02:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 12 2012 01:53 radiatoren wrote:On September 12 2012 00:41 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2012 00:35 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2012 00:16 xDaunt wrote:Just as a followup to the conversation about polling bias and why I wouldn't trust the polls right now (wait til the two weeks before the election), look at this WashPo/ABC poll. It shows a 49-48 split in favor of Obama. However, go look at the very last question that shows the composition of the sample: 37% independent, 33% democrats, 23% republican, 4% other, 3% don't know. I've always assumed that the purpose of polls was to try and propagate the idea that pollsters have a useful profession and should continue getting employment. Pay them and they'll give you a poll that shows anything. Doesn't in any way surprise me. Still, assuming that you understand their methodology and, in this case, their selection of respondents you can try and glean something from it. I don't know whether there's a concerted effort to kick out biased polls, I just know that there has been a systemic undersampling of republicans in polls. I highlighted the Washpo poll as a particularly egregious example. What a good is a poll that gives a 10% sampling bias to democrats? I'm trying to find it, but I'm pretty sure that I just saw an article in the past couple weeks that the number of registered republican voters has outgrown registered democrats. Plus, it has always been the case that registered republicans are more likely to vote, which is why polls of "likely voters" are more accurate than those of "registered voters." There is something to be said about removing biases introduced by the people you choose to poll. However, ~1000 people are too small a sample to carry any significance in itself for a country with 315 million inhabitants or even only counting swing states of about 76 millions. I take it, that they use a lot of assumptions to spice up the statistical values of the test, but exactly these assumptions are what is killing the credibility like KwarK suggests In other words: The poll is invalid from the get go due to too few participants. Had it been for a single state, like North Carolina, 1000 would be a decent poll, but that is not the case here. The size of the population makes no difference. I use the notation that Wikipedia uses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergeometric_distributionThe exact standard error is found by considering the variance of a X/n, where X is Hypergeometric. This variance is then (p(1-p)/n)*((N-n)/(N-1)), the latter factor is call the finite population correction and is often dropped for simplicity because it makes little difference. The standard error of a poll is then sqrt(p(1-p)*(f-1)/(N-1)), where f = n/N is the sampling fraction. From this, it's obvious that if N is large (like 311.5M), the factor (f-1)/(N-1) is small (virtually 0), so that the size of the sample compared to the population makes virtually no difference to the standard error of the poll. If you don't believe my algebra here's a numerical example. In a poll about who you're voting for, the proportion of people supporting a candidate is close to 50%, so take p = 0.5, we sample n = 1000 people from a population of N = 9.7 million (the population of North Carolina), the standard error is then 1.58106%. For the US, the population is N = 311.6 million, and the standard error is 1.58113%, virtually unchanged. No, I am not talking about the statistical effect in itself. I am saying that the biases from the people you choose will get drowned out. With a smaller population, you get a more homogenous population and therefore a smaller amount of different population groups with a real effect on the result of the election. My understanding of the sample selection process is that the pollsters tinker with the sample to create a sample that is representative of the population. These aren't just straight surveys that are taken of random people. There are a lot of adjustments involved. I imagine if that were the case, they wouldn't ask 10% more Democrats than Republicans; that doesn't add up, especially since America is a country with twice as many conservatives than liberals. I'm always puzzled by the huge number of conservative news organizations and people willing to use those opinion laden "stories" as evidence of some nonexistant or overblown trend. Gallup is generally recognized to be a non-partisan polling organization.
You didn't link to Gallup...
|
On September 12 2012 06:46 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 05:23 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 12 2012 03:55 aksfjh wrote:On September 12 2012 03:32 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 12 2012 02:34 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2012 02:30 radiatoren wrote:On September 12 2012 02:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 12 2012 01:53 radiatoren wrote:On September 12 2012 00:41 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2012 00:35 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I've always assumed that the purpose of polls was to try and propagate the idea that pollsters have a useful profession and should continue getting employment. Pay them and they'll give you a poll that shows anything. Doesn't in any way surprise me.
Still, assuming that you understand their methodology and, in this case, their selection of respondents you can try and glean something from it. I don't know whether there's a concerted effort to kick out biased polls, I just know that there has been a systemic undersampling of republicans in polls. I highlighted the Washpo poll as a particularly egregious example. What a good is a poll that gives a 10% sampling bias to democrats? I'm trying to find it, but I'm pretty sure that I just saw an article in the past couple weeks that the number of registered republican voters has outgrown registered democrats. Plus, it has always been the case that registered republicans are more likely to vote, which is why polls of "likely voters" are more accurate than those of "registered voters." There is something to be said about removing biases introduced by the people you choose to poll. However, ~1000 people are too small a sample to carry any significance in itself for a country with 315 million inhabitants or even only counting swing states of about 76 millions. I take it, that they use a lot of assumptions to spice up the statistical values of the test, but exactly these assumptions are what is killing the credibility like KwarK suggests In other words: The poll is invalid from the get go due to too few participants. Had it been for a single state, like North Carolina, 1000 would be a decent poll, but that is not the case here. The size of the population makes no difference. I use the notation that Wikipedia uses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergeometric_distributionThe exact standard error is found by considering the variance of a X/n, where X is Hypergeometric. This variance is then (p(1-p)/n)*((N-n)/(N-1)), the latter factor is call the finite population correction and is often dropped for simplicity because it makes little difference. The standard error of a poll is then sqrt(p(1-p)*(f-1)/(N-1)), where f = n/N is the sampling fraction. From this, it's obvious that if N is large (like 311.5M), the factor (f-1)/(N-1) is small (virtually 0), so that the size of the sample compared to the population makes virtually no difference to the standard error of the poll. If you don't believe my algebra here's a numerical example. In a poll about who you're voting for, the proportion of people supporting a candidate is close to 50%, so take p = 0.5, we sample n = 1000 people from a population of N = 9.7 million (the population of North Carolina), the standard error is then 1.58106%. For the US, the population is N = 311.6 million, and the standard error is 1.58113%, virtually unchanged. No, I am not talking about the statistical effect in itself. I am saying that the biases from the people you choose will get drowned out. With a smaller population, you get a more homogenous population and therefore a smaller amount of different population groups with a real effect on the result of the election. My understanding of the sample selection process is that the pollsters tinker with the sample to create a sample that is representative of the population. These aren't just straight surveys that are taken of random people. There are a lot of adjustments involved. I imagine if that were the case, they wouldn't ask 10% more Democrats than Republicans; that doesn't add up, especially since America is a country with twice as many conservatives than liberals. I'm always puzzled by the huge number of conservative news organizations and people willing to use those opinion laden "stories" as evidence of some nonexistant or overblown trend. Gallup is generally recognized to be a non-partisan polling organization. You didn't link to Gallup...
No, but he did link to an article that was citing Gallup.
|
On September 12 2012 07:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 06:46 aksfjh wrote:On September 12 2012 05:23 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 12 2012 03:55 aksfjh wrote:On September 12 2012 03:32 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 12 2012 02:34 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2012 02:30 radiatoren wrote:On September 12 2012 02:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 12 2012 01:53 radiatoren wrote:On September 12 2012 00:41 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I don't know whether there's a concerted effort to kick out biased polls, I just know that there has been a systemic undersampling of republicans in polls. I highlighted the Washpo poll as a particularly egregious example. What a good is a poll that gives a 10% sampling bias to democrats? I'm trying to find it, but I'm pretty sure that I just saw an article in the past couple weeks that the number of registered republican voters has outgrown registered democrats. Plus, it has always been the case that registered republicans are more likely to vote, which is why polls of "likely voters" are more accurate than those of "registered voters." There is something to be said about removing biases introduced by the people you choose to poll. However, ~1000 people are too small a sample to carry any significance in itself for a country with 315 million inhabitants or even only counting swing states of about 76 millions. I take it, that they use a lot of assumptions to spice up the statistical values of the test, but exactly these assumptions are what is killing the credibility like KwarK suggests In other words: The poll is invalid from the get go due to too few participants. Had it been for a single state, like North Carolina, 1000 would be a decent poll, but that is not the case here. The size of the population makes no difference. I use the notation that Wikipedia uses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergeometric_distributionThe exact standard error is found by considering the variance of a X/n, where X is Hypergeometric. This variance is then (p(1-p)/n)*((N-n)/(N-1)), the latter factor is call the finite population correction and is often dropped for simplicity because it makes little difference. The standard error of a poll is then sqrt(p(1-p)*(f-1)/(N-1)), where f = n/N is the sampling fraction. From this, it's obvious that if N is large (like 311.5M), the factor (f-1)/(N-1) is small (virtually 0), so that the size of the sample compared to the population makes virtually no difference to the standard error of the poll. If you don't believe my algebra here's a numerical example. In a poll about who you're voting for, the proportion of people supporting a candidate is close to 50%, so take p = 0.5, we sample n = 1000 people from a population of N = 9.7 million (the population of North Carolina), the standard error is then 1.58106%. For the US, the population is N = 311.6 million, and the standard error is 1.58113%, virtually unchanged. No, I am not talking about the statistical effect in itself. I am saying that the biases from the people you choose will get drowned out. With a smaller population, you get a more homogenous population and therefore a smaller amount of different population groups with a real effect on the result of the election. My understanding of the sample selection process is that the pollsters tinker with the sample to create a sample that is representative of the population. These aren't just straight surveys that are taken of random people. There are a lot of adjustments involved. I imagine if that were the case, they wouldn't ask 10% more Democrats than Republicans; that doesn't add up, especially since America is a country with twice as many conservatives than liberals. I'm always puzzled by the huge number of conservative news organizations and people willing to use those opinion laden "stories" as evidence of some nonexistant or overblown trend. Gallup is generally recognized to be a non-partisan polling organization. You didn't link to Gallup... No, but he did link to an article that was citing Gallup.
No, he linked to an article that cited an article that referred to Gallup polling data. You're taking real data and running it through a ton of news filters in order to get your Republican spin for the day. No wonder the "honest" discussions here usually end with a clarification that your view of reality is incredibly skewed.
|
On September 12 2012 07:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 06:46 aksfjh wrote:On September 12 2012 05:23 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 12 2012 03:55 aksfjh wrote:On September 12 2012 03:32 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 12 2012 02:34 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2012 02:30 radiatoren wrote:On September 12 2012 02:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 12 2012 01:53 radiatoren wrote:On September 12 2012 00:41 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I don't know whether there's a concerted effort to kick out biased polls, I just know that there has been a systemic undersampling of republicans in polls. I highlighted the Washpo poll as a particularly egregious example. What a good is a poll that gives a 10% sampling bias to democrats? I'm trying to find it, but I'm pretty sure that I just saw an article in the past couple weeks that the number of registered republican voters has outgrown registered democrats. Plus, it has always been the case that registered republicans are more likely to vote, which is why polls of "likely voters" are more accurate than those of "registered voters." There is something to be said about removing biases introduced by the people you choose to poll. However, ~1000 people are too small a sample to carry any significance in itself for a country with 315 million inhabitants or even only counting swing states of about 76 millions. I take it, that they use a lot of assumptions to spice up the statistical values of the test, but exactly these assumptions are what is killing the credibility like KwarK suggests In other words: The poll is invalid from the get go due to too few participants. Had it been for a single state, like North Carolina, 1000 would be a decent poll, but that is not the case here. The size of the population makes no difference. I use the notation that Wikipedia uses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergeometric_distributionThe exact standard error is found by considering the variance of a X/n, where X is Hypergeometric. This variance is then (p(1-p)/n)*((N-n)/(N-1)), the latter factor is call the finite population correction and is often dropped for simplicity because it makes little difference. The standard error of a poll is then sqrt(p(1-p)*(f-1)/(N-1)), where f = n/N is the sampling fraction. From this, it's obvious that if N is large (like 311.5M), the factor (f-1)/(N-1) is small (virtually 0), so that the size of the sample compared to the population makes virtually no difference to the standard error of the poll. If you don't believe my algebra here's a numerical example. In a poll about who you're voting for, the proportion of people supporting a candidate is close to 50%, so take p = 0.5, we sample n = 1000 people from a population of N = 9.7 million (the population of North Carolina), the standard error is then 1.58106%. For the US, the population is N = 311.6 million, and the standard error is 1.58113%, virtually unchanged. No, I am not talking about the statistical effect in itself. I am saying that the biases from the people you choose will get drowned out. With a smaller population, you get a more homogenous population and therefore a smaller amount of different population groups with a real effect on the result of the election. My understanding of the sample selection process is that the pollsters tinker with the sample to create a sample that is representative of the population. These aren't just straight surveys that are taken of random people. There are a lot of adjustments involved. I imagine if that were the case, they wouldn't ask 10% more Democrats than Republicans; that doesn't add up, especially since America is a country with twice as many conservatives than liberals. I'm always puzzled by the huge number of conservative news organizations and people willing to use those opinion laden "stories" as evidence of some nonexistant or overblown trend. Gallup is generally recognized to be a non-partisan polling organization. You didn't link to Gallup... No, but he did link to an article that was citing Gallup.
Improper citation, that one. Linking to paywalled content and therefore not the original source is something a journalist should avoid, if possible. On the other hand, I have no reason to doubt the stated numbers.
Edit: The background article:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154889/Nearly-Half-Identify-Economically-Conservative.aspx
|
On September 12 2012 05:28 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 04:41 Velr wrote:On September 12 2012 04:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 12 2012 03:55 farvacola wrote:On September 12 2012 03:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 12 2012 03:35 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 12 2012 03:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:
gotta say, i think Catholics might break right this time and help put Romney over the top. would be nice to see my fellow Catholics finally start following the gdamn teachings of the Church (abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom, etc.) Haven't Catholics traditionally been opposed to such things (abortion & gay marriage)? How would this election be any different? Catholics are traditionally opposed to those things, but then they traditionally go out and support the politicians that try to enact those laws. also, for whatever reason, Catholics are more likely to support gay-marriage and abortion than other Christians... God, but i hope that changes soon... No, this is totally wrong. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_legal_abortion+ Show Spoiler +Before the Roe v. Wade decision, the right-to-life movement in the U.S. consisted of lawyers, politicians, and doctors, almost all of whom were Catholic. The only coordinated opposition to abortion during the early 1970s came from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Family Life Bureau, also a Catholic organization. Mobilization of a wide-scale pro-life movement among Catholics began quickly after the Roe v. Wade decision with the creation of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). The NRLC also organized non-Catholics, eventually becoming the largest pro-life organization in the United States. Connie Paige has been quoted as having said that, "[t]he Roman Catholic Church created the right-to-life movement. Without the church, the movement would not exist as such today."[15 + Show Spoiler +Much of the pro-life movement in the United States and around the world finds support in the Roman Catholic Church, Christian right, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Church of England, the Anglican Church in North America, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).[31][32][33][34] However, the pro-life teachings of these denominations vary considerably. The Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church consider abortion to be immoral in all cases, but permit acts[citation needed] which indirectly result in the death of the fetus in the case where the mother's life is threatened. In Pope John Paul II's Letter to Families he simply stated the Roman Catholic Church's view on abortion and euthanasia: "Laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law." i was talking about Catholics, not the Catholic Church. The Church is firmly, 100% against both gay marriage and abortion, I believe to the point of calling both: "intrinistic evil", as in, something that is always wrong, no matter what circumstances. however, many Catholic men and women (especially women) do not follow the Church's teachings about those issues, far more than other Christian groups. so yeah, the Church is against it, but I wasn't talking about the Church, i was talking about the congregation. On September 12 2012 03:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 12 2012 03:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 12 2012 03:35 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 12 2012 03:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:
gotta say, i think Catholics might break right this time and help put Romney over the top. would be nice to see my fellow Catholics finally start following the gdamn teachings of the Church (abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom, etc.) Haven't Catholics traditionally been opposed to such things (abortion & gay marriage)? How would this election be any different? Catholics are traditionally opposed to those things, but then they traditionally go out and support the politicians that try to enact those laws. also, for whatever reason, Catholics are more likely to support gay-marriage and abortion than other Christians... God, but i hope that changes soon... There are two types of cathlics, a fairly liberal fairly tolerant left wing, and a more conserative wing. Biden and ryan are both catholics, just from the opposite wings of the church. yeah, and only one type actually follows the teachings of the Church, but i guess that's kind of irrelevant for here... just a gripe i've had with my fellow Catholics for a long time now. tbh, i kinda wish the Church would start excommunicating people like Biden and Pelosi, but they never will, and i suppose its for the best that they don't they would take massive losses in europe, actually they asllready are because they are so backwards. Probably also because, historically, the religious position on abortion hasn't been so one-sided. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/In the US, Catholics may also be more wary about breaching the separation of church and state, since it wasn't that long ago that Catholicism itself was frowned upon by the Protestant majority in this country. (this would probably apply more to gay marriage than to abortion, since the latter is seen as an issue of life-or-death, while the former is about who gets what legal rights)
that is a slightly disingenuous article.
i can see why they wouldn't excommunicate people, and i half approve of their (and your) reasoning, but at the same time... it's kinda weird not to.
|
On September 12 2012 06:36 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 20:54 kwizach wrote:On September 11 2012 20:34 Silidons wrote:On September 11 2012 15:18 Defacer wrote:If anyone is in the mood to read something extremely depressing ... The Deafness Before the Storm: Bush White House ignored adamant warnings from CIA of imminent Al-Qaeda attackOn April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real. Dick Cheny knew that terrorists had taken over planes and did nothing to stop it + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y Fun fact is that they did not include his testimony in the 9-11 report ^_^ You realize that the video you linked to directly contradicts your assertion? They're talking about the order to shoot the plane down, and Mineta clearly recalls Cheney saying: And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" The order therefore was to shoot the plane(s) down. They simply did not react/reach them in time. This claim by conspiracy theorists that Cheney deliberately let the hijackers hit the towers has been debunked countless times. Why the hell would they be saying "30 miles out, 20 miles out, 10 miles out" and at the 10 miles out mark, ask if the orders stand? That completely goes against if the initial orders were to shoot them down. Why the fuck would how far the miles out are change the order if it was to shoot? That doesn't make any sense. It's like you telling me to shoot someone who is running at you with a knife, and then when they're 10 feet away from you ask if you still want me to shoot...it only makes sense if you had asked me to NOT shoot, then you realize how close they now are.
Let me repeat. You don't have to postulate whether the guy in your video is talking about an order to shoot down the plane or an order to not shoot the plane. He says himself in the very video you linked to that they are talking about an order to shoot down the plane. Here, let me save you the trouble of having to listen to your own video:
MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.
MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out.
There. Now that your little "Cheney purposively let the towers get hit" claim is debunked (for more, read this), kindly stop posting idiotic 9/11 conspiracy theories - a "9/11 & terrorism" thread got closed about an hour ago precisely because conspiracy theorists had invaded the discussion, and I certainly don't want this thread to suffer from such an invasion.
|
On September 12 2012 06:36 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 20:54 kwizach wrote:On September 11 2012 20:34 Silidons wrote:On September 11 2012 15:18 Defacer wrote:If anyone is in the mood to read something extremely depressing ... The Deafness Before the Storm: Bush White House ignored adamant warnings from CIA of imminent Al-Qaeda attackOn April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real. Dick Cheny knew that terrorists had taken over planes and did nothing to stop it + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y Fun fact is that they did not include his testimony in the 9-11 report ^_^ You realize that the video you linked to directly contradicts your assertion? They're talking about the order to shoot the plane down, and Mineta clearly recalls Cheney saying: And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" The order therefore was to shoot the plane(s) down. They simply did not react/reach them in time. This claim by conspiracy theorists that Cheney deliberately let the hijackers hit the towers has been debunked countless times. Why the hell would they be saying "30 miles out, 20 miles out, 10 miles out" and at the 10 miles out mark, ask if the orders stand? That completely goes against if the initial orders were to shoot them down. Why the fuck would how far the miles out are change the order if it was to shoot? That doesn't make any sense. It's like you telling me to shoot someone who is running at you with a knife, and then when they're 10 feet away from you ask if you still want me to shoot...it only makes sense if you had asked me to NOT shoot, then you realize how close they now are.
It does make sense, usually you would confirm an order before firing at a civilian, at least I would god damn hope so. What doesn't make sense, is why ask if the order stands, if your planes are still 10 minutes away and you have no chance of intercepting(maybe they thought it was going after a different target and would have more time??). It surprises me the only defense for aircraft they had took so long to get to D.C. airspace. Shouldn't the local national guard have some kind of surface to air defense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
