Typically, I show that a number you or someone else uses is a load of horse manure, usually by at least one order of magnitude, and the response is along the lines of "are you implying that the fraction that's true means nothing?"
No. I'm saying the number is a load of crap, and that the consistent use of numbers that are loads of crap should cause anyone using these sources to be suspicious of other numbers and facts they issue.
I suppose if I were to base political policy on 30,000 people dying in the World Trade Centers, you'd have no business correcting me because that would mean you were saying that the nearly 3,000 dead was meaningless.
And nobody said that the casualties were caused by "napalm," which, to extend the "load of crap" situation, is not even DEPLOYED over there.
The numbers include civilians who died of many causes, including being killed by insurgents.
You can't just make stuff up anymore, like the Left has been doing for decades. It's a new world now.
Current Events » in reply to T. B. "Most of it turned out to be crap."
You know, that technique is getting a bit old.
The whole thread (28 posts)
- Evidence of US Use of Chemical Weapons on Civilians
- Sounds like more anti-American propaganda.
- More evidence of people who don't know what they are talking about.
- Funny thing about definitions
- re: Evidence (Tailwind II)
- WMDs, against civilians. Yer tax dollars at work, and for what? (n/t)