'Occupy' types

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Iran. They want to invade bad. It's like they are licking their chops wanting to go balls deep into that country, but understand the public has had it with the war mongering. So they use the constant fear tactic of "nuclear warfare" to continually pump the fear into people and then pass it off as "protecting our freedom"..

WHO wants to invade bad? Joe schmoe on the street? Romney? Santorum? CPAC? There are lots of stupid people who want to do stupid things. Are they relevant to the actual discussion? Are they in a position to make such things occur? If not, who gives a flaming f***. Site to me some credible source that some relevant politician or political group wants to invade Iran or is suggesting it is an option.

As always, you practice in vaguaries and logical leaps. Maybe someone is doing is arguing the position you suggest. You may be right. At the same time, I honestly haven't heard any politician suggest it. WHO, specifically, is using the "tactic of 'nuclear warfare' to continually pump the fear into people and then pass it off as "protecting our freedom' ".

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

My point regarding the military and campaign contributions was to show that many are tired of the pointless fighting and wars to and want to come home. Not so much as they endorse X guy over Y guy. I think they probably would more more inclined to endorse the guy who's going to bring them home as compared to the guy who wants to poke the hornets nest.

And my point regarding the military and campaign contributions is simply that the sample size is far too small to draw any conclusions from it at all.

BUT: Assuming the only reason someone from the military would support Paul is because of his foreign policy positions AND that a contribution constitutes exactly the statement you purport it to be ("Many are tired of pointless fighting") - why is a statement by 2% of the military significant when the other 98% have made no statement or a statement to the contrary. Using your same logical constructs, one could just as easily assert that the silence of the other 96.5% constitutes support for the current US military activities.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin(Edit)

By the way, 2% also assumes each $1.00 represents one active military person. If a more reasonable value is assigned - say, $10.00 per person, the sample size shrinks to .2% (rounding up) of military personnel. Pretty sure no reasonable statistician would draw any conclusions from that sample size.