My buddy was in Iraq with the UN, and the Iraqis would occasionally find those old weapons and ask for help disposing of them. He has some photos of a bunch of UN folks in full hazmat suits with Republican Guard guys just standing around in their usual uniforms, smoking cigs, apparently not concerned about the leaking shell of death nearby.
Nobody was actually worried about this stuff for offensive purposes. It wasn’t a secret.
Nobody cares about that, FFS. Nobody even cares that they promised the war would pay for itself, and it ended up costing us a trillion dollars, along with tripling the price of crude oil. What people care about is that he lied us into a war that killed thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands (at least) of Iraqis.
And he didn’t just lie on Meet the Press, or in stump speeches. He lied to Congress, in writing. The October 2002 AUMF didn’t just say, “OK, invade Iraq!” It authorized invasion ONLY on the condition that Bush certify, in writing, that all measures short of war had failed, and that invasion was necessary for the security of the US. A few rusty, motheaten munitions from the 1980’s did not meet that standard, but Bush made such a certification anyway, eleven days after Hans Blix reported to the UN that Iraq was proactively cooperating with the weapons inspectors, that no WMD programs or stockpiles had been found after four months of searching, that the most serious conventional weapon violation found was a missile that flew about 15 miles farther than the 93 miles allowed by the UN (Baghdad is 6000 miles from the US), and that it would just be a matter of months to resolve the remaining issues.
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
THAT is why Bush should burn in hell.
Firstly, the exact wording of a poll does make a big difference. Here are a few examples.
Secondly, in the Howard Stern (HS) example, it wasn’t merely the phrasing of a question, it was a false fact made as an assertion. Asserting anything in a question can make it a leading question let alone false information.
But finally and importantly, HS was not merely a poll. It was a situation where people would expect their words to be used verbatim, and where even a long hesitation might make them look foolish. This really is a situation where people will fumble around and give affirmative answers to things they are not sure about.
In all, it’s fine as a piece of entertainment. But no, HS didn’t give a good example of bias.
Bullshit.
This was a deliberate effort to derail the thread with a nonsense claim that GWB and company were somehow not lying.
If you want to debate this claim, open a new thread.
EVERYONE, this hijack is over.
[ /Moderating ]
Do you have a cite for this? Otherwise that is a huge statement to make without evidence. E.g. do Republicans make up more people in prison? To me you have asserted something similar to “Democrats are taller than Republicans”.
I think you’re missing my point… I’m not saying I can specifically prove that Republicans are more X than Democrats, although for some values of X I have an opinion about it. What I am saying is that there’s no reason that the null hypothesis is that they’re equal just because.
This is particularly true when we restrict our discussion to the very small group of people who are nationally elected officials and prominent opinion-makers.
So if my position is “Republicans are more partisan than democrats” and your position is “Republicans and democrats are equally partisan”, it is NOT the case that the burden of proof lies entirely with me because I’m the one making an outrageous and surprising claim. (Which doesn’t mean my claim is automatically true of course, I can’t just win via proof-by-assertion.)
I’ll have to disagree. I believe if one breaks up a large population into two self-describing groups then, outside of any evidence, they should be considered equal*. To do otherwise allows us to fall into the us-versus-them mentality.
I agree with this. But I think the burden of proof is on you to provide some sort of rationale for this correlation to exist. Otherwise the null hypothesis would be that it’s not true.
Republicans are more religious than Democrats. They are more likely to live in the center or South as opposed to the West or Northeast. They are more likely to live in rural areas. I’m sure that there are other similar measurable differences involving things like income, level of education, etc.
Given all those already-known quantifiable differences, why would the null hypothesis be that they would be equal when it comes to X, where X is any other characteristic?
Sometimes there isn’t a null hypothesis.
Who’s a faster runner… lions or tigers? Well, if I want to convince you that lions are faster, I should actually present some evidence. But in the absence of evidence, it’s certainly not correct to assume that for some reason they are precisely equally fast.
Right, which is why I am discounting Howard Sterrn, Jay Walking on The Tonight Show and a similar thing I saw done on Bill Maher because polling is a science and those things - while entertaining - are not, nor are they held to standards. A comedy bit will not include a random sampling of people, for example - they will try and get the people who look a certain part. They can also edit out stuff that isn’t funny and/or fits with the predetermined outcome they desire. All of this if revealed would cause polling outfits to lose any credibility they might have had.
Right, and there is published evidence for those traits. Republicans also give more money to charities and spend more time volunteering, which are also published. However, outside of evidence we should take a neutral stance. Otherwise we end up with statements like “conservatives lie more” or “liberals are not as smart” that people start taking as fact.
Because lions are known to have physical differences compared to tigers. So there’s no reason to assume a priori that they have the same speed.
The attributes you’re discussing are a part of human nature. Republicans and Democrats are both humans. Unless there’s some specific reason to believe that they differ in some attribute of human nature, the null hypothesis would be that they’re the same.
How would you apply your position to other attributes? If I suggested that Republicans and Democrats differ, on average, WRT average height or weight, or preference for dogs versus cats etc., would you say “there isn’t a null hypothesis” that they’re the same?
There’s a important distinction between taking a stance of ignorance and taking a stance in which we believe a particular statement to be true, even a “neutral sounding” statement.
In the absence of evidence we don’t know if Republicans are more partisan than Democrats. But that doesn’t mean that the most likely state of affairs is that they’re equally partisan. In fact, I’d argue that, particularly given all the cultural differences in our increasingly divided current nation, it’s VERY unlikely that they’re equally partisan.
That’s an interesting question… dogs versus cats is quite possibly affected by rural vs urban. Do different races have different average heights? Poverty could factor into that as well, with issues of childhood nutrition and so forth.
Sure they’re part of human nature to some extent. But how much they express themselves is (presumably) affected by culture and upbringing. And there are definitely measurable differences between the culture and upbringing of democrats vs republicans, such as likelihood of being raised religious. Am I enough of an expert in all the factors that go into a human personality that I can make a confident and informed prediction about what effect that will all have on individual personality traits? Hardly. But what I’m arguing against is the position that they ARE the same because of BALANCE and FAIRNESS and JUST BECAUSE.
As I said in my previous post to Deeg, the LEAST likely position is that Democrats and Republicans are actually precisely identical on just about ANY measure of any sort.
As for my actual opinion on the topic at hand (and I admit I can’t prove it), I think the constant drumbeat of Fox News, and the ability to focus onto a single polarizing individual (Obama) leads to a higher degree of partisan distrust among Republicans than Democrats right now. Obviously my opinion is the subjective opinion of someone who is himself a liberal Obama supporter, and you will note that I have been very careful to be clear that this is just an opinion. If you want to present an argument evidence that I’m wrong, go ahead. But I reject a response which is that everyone is equally partisan JUST BECAUSE.
I agree. But it’s hard to separate this stuff out because one of the reasons we hate Obama so much is because he himself is very partisan. Bush and Clinton tended to go after the opposition with a wink and a smile, and generally avoided talking about the other party at all, leaving that primarily to subordinates. I’ve never seen a President attack the other party so directly and so angrily as if he’s always campaigning, and supporters of that party are going to pick up on that. If he disdains us, we disdain him.
I’ve predicted before and I stand by it now, that Hillary Clinton, should she win, will find less hate from Republicans(although it will still be there, she is a Clinton after all), and she’ll have an easier time working with the GOP Congress. I believe her political approach once elected will be a lot more like her husband’s than Obama.
Well then you’re not arguing against me, because that’s not my position. I think it’s very possible that there are differences. I just think that absent evidence or rationale the null hypothesis is that there aren’t. But there could be evidence or rationale. Such as:
That’s a rationale. (Whether accurate or not.)
Too subjective for my taste.(I think we’ve discussed this before.)
As do I.
It’s also telling that when Democrats are asked about something and also told that Obama is involved, the favorability of whatever was mentioned does NOT go up suddenly, which would be the case if those who desperately want Democrats to be as partisan were actually as partisan as their counterparts.
One doesn’t need to see a Bush poll (which is good because nobody has managed to dig one up), one only needs to see how the Democrats did in relationship to their Republican and independent counterparts.
I agree. However I think it suspect to start acting like we do know until the evidence is in.
And this is where I strongly disagree. I do not trust one side to correctly estimate whether they are “better” in some regard over their opponents (you’ll forgive me for assuming that you are more liberal than conservative in this discussion). Confirmation bias is too strong an actor.
Well, there are three possibilities:
(1) Republicans are more partisan
(2) Democrats are more partisan
(3) They’re precisely equally partisan
I’ve argued that (3) is extremely unlikely. So if it’s either (1) or (2), in either case ONE of the sides is going to be right and other is going to be wrong.
If you’re truly an independent observer, you’re free to observe the level of partisanship in the US right now and come to your own conclusion. And if your conclusion disagrees with mine, hey, fine, we can disagree. But it’s both ridiculous and condescending for you to reject instantly and out of hand any opinion about partisanship that is ever proffered by anyone who has the slightest bit of “skin in the game”.