I hate that shit. Too often the right-wingers here jump into a thread, spout some hit, and then run away when confronted. That doesn’t have to happen too many times before you can give up debating the person and you are tempted to just insult them.

That’s a lie. That’s a lie that is probably the result of an amazing level of racism found within Amused Observer.

“I am laughing at the underlying opposing premises being highlighted on this site. Specifically that the more politically correct premise of John Lott is the target of ridicule.”

How stupid are you? Ridiculing John Lott has nothing to do with political correctness. In fact, I think you are only bringing up political correctness because you are racist, and racism and political correctness don’t go hand-in-hand.

John Lott is wrong because the evidence he claims existed doesn’t.

It was true, Greenwald did sometimes visit his critics’ sites and reply to them under his own name, so it doesn’t really fit his MO to sockpuppet at other sites critiquing him (the sock puppets never appeared in the same threads as Greenwald). Also, having run his own blog Glenn would have been aware of IP address tracking to identify and ban irritating trolls reregistering under different names. It’s hard to countenance him being dumb enough to do it himself.

This is a pretty good synopsis:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/07/glenn_greenwalds_ip_address_stolen/

Also there is the matter of Greenwald being, you know, intellectually honest and making legitimate fairly argued points not based on misleading research, unreproducable figures and other intellectual tricks.

Now kindly point out where you found “black” in this passage.

A plain lie, AO.

EL,
From Freakonomics:
“ In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years—the years during which young men enter their criminal prime—the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals.”

CD,
“I would think that anyone so willing to throw around accusations of ignorance”

One might think you were referring to me, LOL. One might think you were implying ignorance on my part. Many thanks for the explanation of academic review and statistical analysis. The best academic review comes from careful reading and comprehension of the subject matter.

I have always enjoyed your stick figures. It looks like a great timesaver. It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. I ‘m not sure if that refers to written or spoken word. The spoken word gains much from tone and inflection while the written word relies on correct construction and the comprehension skills of the reader.

I’m a fairly amused observer of these goings on, since my field is far more pure than these socioeconomists (see http://xkcd.com/435/), but I know all about the problems of fraud in academic research, and between the numerous rebuttals, the accusations of malfeasance, and the outrageous lawsuits, Lott reeks of it.

No son, YOU made that leap. That was never in Freakonomics. Nice to see the mask came off, or in your case the hood.

ROTFLMAO
Do you have any idea what the premise of John Lott’s position is? Did you even read it or Freakonomics which it refutes?

I have a real sneaking suspicion that you haven’t. Perhaps you are just posting anything you can find negative about conservatives with your own snarky headline. This is too funny; sometimes you just can’t make this stuff up. Big clue, this isn’t really about economic analysis.

The short version:
John Lott
Armed citizens are responsible for the drop in violent crime, the drop in crime tracks the issuance of ccw permits.

Freakonomics
Violent crime is concentrated in a certain demographic slice of America. This same certain demographic slice of America also experiences a higher rate of abortions per capita. The unintended consequence of Roe vs. Wade is a reduction in crime because so many potential criminals were never created.

Even shorter version:

Freakonomics
Fewer blacks = less crime

John Lott
No, that’s wrong

Jay Tea, if you have any equivalence for this from the left, I’d love to hear it.

I’m glad to see you make no pretense to hide how sub-human you really are. I just wish you would stop whining about being treated unfairly.

Jay Tea: “…good point. Now kindly repeat it for Oliver, who inferred in his all-too-brief commentary that this sort of thing is pretty much exclusively the domain of the right.”

Can I ask you a question? I know you are stupid, but are you acting stupid here, or do you really believe this? Your persecution complex is colouring everything your read. It makes it impossible for you to comprehend the written word as it was intended.

Oliver never even mentioned Sock Puppets in his commentary. He talked about Lott’s lies. Lott lied when he wrote his paper on the gun laws vs. crime.