Syria's Assad used chemical weapons on his own people

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/09/congress-corporate-sponsors

 

 

I just don't see any examples where further data brings the conclusion into question.

 

 

Eugene, if you really want to invalidate Luke's link then you should provide data. (Unfortunately, I just don't think there's any data that's gonna help you)

 

And also there is a line between you demanding scientific rigor and you wanting the conclusion to be wrong and I think we've started to cross from to the other.

Edited September 12, 2013 by LimpyLoo

and eugene has brought nothing to the table either so we're back to square one. cool!

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:05 AM, luke viia said:

 

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:03 AM, eugene said:

you made a statement so you have to back it up, it just doesn't hold any water in its current form and i explained why, i just really can't stand these troll-statistics that are supposed to back super significant claims. and it's not like i asked for something unfalsifiable or impossible to attain.

What statement was that?

 

that defense corps influenced the vote. Edited September 12, 2013 by eugene

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:05 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:02 AM, luke viia said:

BTW, my only conclusion here is that money talks.

and you derive it from that link you posted ?

 

 

Don't be disingenuous. You are fully aware that I didn't just read that link and decide "OMG! Money talks!"

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:08 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:05 AM, luke viia said:

 

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:03 AM, eugene said:

you made a statement so you have to back it up, it just doesn't hold any water in its current form and i explained why, i just really can't stand these troll-statistics that are supposed to back super significant claims. and it's not like i asked for something unfalsifiable or impossible to attain.

What statement was that?

 

that defense corps influenced the vote.

 

 

They paid more money to those who voted yes. That's the point of the article. It's not a statement I made. Always semantics with you.

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:07 AM, Alcofribas said:

and eugene has brought nothing to the table either so we're back to square one. cool!

i did, i explained why this table and the 83% thing is meaningless if you don't know their total contributions and preferably the exact sources.

Their total contributions for this year (2013-14) are not public yet.

Edited September 12, 2013 by luke viia

on 911, saudi arabians were framed for crashing planes (most of whom are still alive), and the us destroyed iraq because of chemical weapons.

 

seems legit.

 

i dont see why america even bothers to make up stories anymore.

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:09 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:07 AM, Alcofribas said:

and eugene has brought nothing to the table either so we're back to square one. cool!

i did, i explained why this table and the 83% thing is meaningless if you don't know their total contributions and preferably the exact sources.

 

 

I looked for a single instance where the defense contributions were overwhelmed by some other, contrarily-agenda'd contribution and I found none.

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:09 AM, luke viia said:

 

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:05 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:02 AM, luke viia said:

BTW, my only conclusion here is that money talks.

and you derive it from that link you posted ?

 

Don't be disingenuous. You are fully aware that I didn't just read that link and decide "OMG! Money talks!"

 

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:08 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:05 AM, luke viia said:

 

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:03 AM, eugene said:

you made a statement so you have to back it up, it just doesn't hold any water in its current form and i explained why, i just really can't stand these troll-statistics that are supposed to back super significant claims. and it's not like i asked for something unfalsifiable or impossible to attain.

What statement was that?

 

that defense corps influenced the vote.

 

They paid more money to those who voted yes. That's the point of the article. It's not a statement I made. Always semantics with you.

 

it's a statement you adopt, doesn't matter if you didn't make it personally, you still should be able to back it up.

 

 

 

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:12 AM, luke viia said:

Their total contributions for this year (2013-14) are not public yet.

 

you don't need 2013, you need the same years the maplight article used - from January 1, 2007—December 31, 2012.

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:06 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Eugene, if you really want to invalidate Luke's link then you should provide data.

 

 

I've been saying this for a while now. I'm sure it's easier to just demand other people be rigorous, but it's also obnoxious.

 

BTW: eugene, you want total funding? You're right that the defense contractors aren't the number one contributors. I'll let you find your own links (note: I have some, but rather than throw information at you, I'd like you to look it up and confirm). So what's the larger point? Are you implying that congressional funding doesn't influence lawmaking?

 

The link just said that there is a correlation between the vote on the Syria resolution and the funds received. That's the only conclusion I'd like to draw from it anyway. You seem to be suggesting that that's not true. Am I right?

Edited September 12, 2013 by luke viia

Oh shit, I have another link. Fuck.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_100_Contractors_of_the_U.S._federal_government

 

 

Edited September 12, 2013 by luke viia

  On 9/12/2013 at 1:17 AM, luke viia said:

 

The link just said that there is a correlation between the vote on the Syria resolution and the funds received. That's the only conclusion I'd like to draw from it anyway. You seem to be suggesting that that's not true. Am I right?

 

of course it's not true, this correlation is pretty much pointless as it's based on a very limited info, if you think it is sound you really need to get back to basic scientific methods classes/basic statistics.

im repeating myself but whatever: following the logic of money directly affecting voting record you need to know the percentages and other sources of donations, because the sheer amount of cash doesn't tell you the whole picture. it's not as simple as more defense cash>>>more pro defense voting.

 

but if you want my opinion about money-politics thing i think that it's more likely that donors are donating to those with compatible ideologies rather than shape some tabula rasa politicians for their liking by throwing money at them. generally, that instrumental marxist theory of relations between state and economy to which ya'll gravitate to might seem attractive but it is really simplistic and outdated in economic sociology.

Vote yes = receive more money from defense contractors.

Vote no = receive less money from defense contractors.

 

Yeah that's limited (there were only ten senators that voted yes - sorry) but it's not "pointless" or "meaningless" no matter how often you say it. Fuck off please.

 

It would be beneficial to know the full disclosure of all the funds affecting congress or US defense contractors' funding trails in general, but we cannot know that. PAC/outside funding, individual campaign contributions, lobbying industries - not all of this is public. People do not generally hold on to some scientific rigor when major problems are affecting them and they can't access all the data. Forgive me for being human in that way, but I want to be able to discuss things even if I can't get at every single bit of info on the topic.

Edited September 12, 2013 by luke viia

  On 9/12/2013 at 2:33 AM, luke viia said:

Vote yes = receive more money from defense contractors.

Vote no = receive less money from defense contractors.

 

it's not even statistically significant you dummy, i mean looks at the actual numbers: 86k, 62k, 59k - vote no, and then there are 19-60k'ers who voted yes, even if you multiply the sample while retaining the same data by 1000 you will get no significant effect of amount of defense cash on yes vote (or a significant effect which will be close to zero), it's obvious even without running the regression or whatever. i should have looked at the actual numbers and distribution before, would have saved some time.

Edited September 12, 2013 by eugene

"dummy" haha

  On 9/12/2013 at 2:46 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 9/12/2013 at 2:33 AM, luke viia said:

Vote yes = receive more money from defense contractors.

Vote no = receive less money from defense contractors.

 

it's not even statistically significant you dummy, i mean looks at the actual numbers: 86k, 62k, 59k - vote no, and then there are 19-60k'ers who voted yes, even if you multiply the sample while retaining the same data by 1000 you will get no significant effect of amount of defense cash on yes vote (or a significant effect which will be close to zero), it's obvious even without running the regression or whatever. i should have looked at the actual numbers and distribution before, would have saved some time.

 

 

Good job picking the highest numbers from column A and the lowest from column B. That's a classy statistical technique there buddy.

 

BTW, forgive me, but what does "multiply the sample while retaining the same data by 1000" mean?

 

Also, remember that the article is not claiming they received funds FOR voting the way they did. They received the funds, then voted.

Edited September 12, 2013 by luke viia

look brah, you're not familiar with stats and it shows, i have enough experience and intuition to know it's not gonna be significant in any way with such numbers, do you really want me to go full +31-on-autism-test and do the whole logistic regressions thing ?

It was just your strange grammar that threw me off. Multiply by 1000 while retaining the same data is what you meant.

 

And no, keep your excess autism to yourself please. I just want you to stop insinuating that it is "pointless" to suggest that money influences politics, which was my point. I never gave a mechanism for this influence, and despite your high-horsing about how much you know, you haven't either. I tried to let the link speak for itself, but you're still here acting like I wrote the article myself.

 

Anyway dinner time, it's been nice ya big US apologist dummy.

Edited September 12, 2013 by luke viia

gas pipeline, oil pipeline. they doez not give a feck about NO kids EVER.

eugene, eugene, eugene. gotta lol every time you stroll into threads with your ridiculous "look here, I'm a scientist, you dummy" bullshit. ever bothered to wonder why threads grind to a halt whenever you start this bs? why intellectual progress falls completely flat whenever you contribute your smug pseudo-academic/I've taken sociology/anthro classes so i know what i'm talking about attitude? you talk large and yet you say nothing. so what if you think you're a statistics buff? so what if you think a single link posted in a 12 page thread might not make an air tight scientific conclusion? it honestly has nothing to do with the sharing of ideas here. just like your dubious and convoluted definition of a "statement" this is all just some really fucking tiresome freshman-in-sociology-class crap and it really dumbs down political threads.

 

anyway, you should try (i know it's really really hard for such a prestigious thinker) to trim down your smug attitude, or at least if you're going to walk around in threads with a lab coat draped over your hermetically sealed asshole maybe try to see the ridiculous irony of how often you call people names. i mean, "dummy?" flol

  On 9/12/2013 at 2:59 AM, luke viia said:

It was just your strange grammar that threw me off. Multiply by 1000 while retaining the same data is what you meant.

 

And no, keep your excess autism to yourself please. I just want you to stop insinuating that it is "pointless" to suggest that money influences politics, which was my point. I never gave a mechanism for this influence, and despite your high-horsing about how much you know, you haven't either. I tried to let the link speak for itself, but you're still here acting like I wrote the article myself.

 

Anyway dinner time, it's been nice ya big US apologist dummy.

i'd never say that money doesn't influence politics, we're talking specifically about the article you brought here which can't tell anything like that at all, in fact it doesn't tell anything period, you're still not convinced of this ?

It is a table of data, eugene.

  On 9/12/2013 at 3:04 AM, Alcofribas said:

eugene, eugene, eugene. gotta lol every time you stroll into threads with your ridiculous "look here, I'm a scientist, you dummy" bullshit. ever bothered to wonder why threads grind to a halt whenever you start this bs? why intellectual progress falls completely flat whenever you contribute your smug pseudo-academic/I've taken sociology/anthro classes so i know what i'm talking about attitude? you talk large and yet you say nothing. so what if you think you're a statistics buff? so what if you think a single link posted in a 12 page thread might not make an air tight scientific conclusion? it honestly has nothing to do with the sharing of ideas here. just like your dubious and convoluted definition of a "statement" this is all just some really fucking tiresome freshman-in-sociology-class crap and it really dumbs down political threads.

 

anyway, you should try (i know it's really really hard for such a prestigious thinker) to trim down your smug attitude, or at least if you're going to walk around in threads with a lab coat draped over your hermetically sealed asshole maybe try to see the ridiculous irony of how often you call people names. i mean, "dummy?" flol

there's nothing smug about bringing some actual social science understandings to these discussions, that's what it's for. are sr4 or xxx being smug when they go in depth about history and chemistry/medicine respectively ? im not pretending to be some ultimate authority on those issues, i've merely done a b.a. in sociology and im currently in the middle of my studies for masters. it's just that some of this stuff that's brought in those political threads can be easily challenged even with very basic knowledge, like the fact that that 83% figure from the article is complete, meaningless bullshit if you consider the actual statistics. it's all just a mental exercise mostly but hopefully the byproduct will make watmm less fucktarded when it comes to such threads.

  On 9/12/2013 at 3:18 AM, luke viia said:

It is a table of data, eugene.

yeah, which if you enter in spss, for example, to test whether amount of cash has an effect on vote via logistic regression (or any other method) will be not significant (and not because of small sample). just trust me on this, you didn't want me to paste the whole spps output here after all.

can you post the whole explanation? im interested after 3 pages of this.