You just don’t get it. It’s not about making things up - it’s about how you perceive someone’s actions when deep down you want to think the best of him, vs perceiving someone’s actions when deep down you want to believe the worst.
As an example, what do you think the reaction of the lefties on the SDMB would be if the Bush administration presided over something like the Waco disaster today? Do you think it would have had even a remote resemblence to their reaction when it was the Clinton administration? What if some FBI agents today surrounded a family at their cabin and shot the mom through the door? Think the reaction would be any different than the reaction towards Ruby Ridge?
And I was careful to say that Republicans do the same thing. And so do Labour Party supporters, and Conservative supporters, and every other biased observer. This is just human nature. If the guy on your side does something, you want to believe there was a good reason. If the guy on the other side does it, you want to believe there wasn’t.
It has nothing to do with character. Bias doesn’t have to be intentional and calculated. Your brain is just wired to want to fit what it observes into its belief system. That’s all. We do double-blind studies not because the participants lack character, but because they lack objectivity.
And if you’ll read the study that I cited above, you’ll see that this is not a universal phenomenon, but that it is demonstrably more often true of conservatives than it is of liberals.
Not when you’re making up those actions. You’re denouncing what you *wish to perceive * others to be, not what they factually, as demonstrated by their actions, *really are * - and the reason you do that is that the facts do not support what you wish to believe and are therefore properly dismissed.
That’s making something up. Again. Got any factual situation to offer instead? Any example from the world of reality? Any at all? No? Again?
On that, you do * have a wealth facts from which to derive that conclusion. The facts by which you claim the Democrats are just as bad are the product of your own imagination*, just as the above hypothetical demonstrates.
The fact that you *cannot * produce comparable facts or real-world examples to the contrary means what you assert to be fact is nevertheless FALSE. The fact that you continue to make the assertion after having been shown that the facts do not support it means you’re simply lying.
On this board, and in the real world in general, we do insist on facts nevertheless. But here, you’ve made a remarkable admission that mere facts have no effect on your beliefs. Not that that itself is a surprise, but your acknowledgment of it is certainly new. There is no congratulation due to you for it, unfortunately.
I admitted that ‘mere facts have no effect on my beliefs’? What are you smoking?
And I’m not going to start digging for examples to prove that people have bias. You’re engaging in sophistry.
Oh, I already did provide examples earlier, by the way. Compare and contrast the way Democrats treated Clinton’s accusers of sexual harassment vs their treatment of Anita Hill, for example. Compare the way they treat Democrats who are accused of any scandal vs the way they treat Republicans.
Oh, what the hell. I’ll give you some examples:
Sandy Berger walks into the national archives and STEALS classified documentation. He hides it in his pants. He hides some at a construction site. The national archive personnel fail to report the extent of the theft to a terrorist commission. Democrats yawn. I remember one ElvisL1ves making the argument that since you can’t prove he was up to no good, it’s no big deal. Is there ANYONE here who believes that the lefties on this board would have been as blase’ about it if a Bush administration official had done the same thing? And that some Republicans would be trying to justify it?
Valerie Plame’s name gets mentioned in a Robert Novak column, and Democrats claim that national intelligence has suffered a huge blow, and call for the complete evisceration of the white house. Impeachments, Cheney’s resignation, etc. When it turns out that A) Plame wasn’t technically covert, B) the name was actually leaked by Richard Armitage at the state department, this doesn’t seem to matter.
Bill Clinton is charged with perjury. Democrats claim that it’s a a special prosecutor run amok, and that the perjury charge had nothing to do with the original offences being investigated, and therefore shouldn’t really be held against Clinton. Republicans claim that perjury is perjury, and impeach Clinton for it.
Scooter Libby is charged with perjury by a special prosecutor, despite the original investigation leading to no charges. Republicans claim that it’s a special prosecutor run amok. Democrats call for the head of Scooter Libby.
Let’s talk about support for the special prosecutor law in general. Support for the special prosecutor system is always held primarily by the party out of power. Republicans thought the special prosecutor was a bad idea during the Reagan and Bush administrations, but supported it as a great protector of the people during the Clinton administration.
Democrats thought it was a bad idea during the Clinton administration, but supported it wholeheartedly during Republican administrations.
When a commander of Bush’s said he couldn’t recall him on a national guard base, the left immediately glommed onto that as ‘proof’ that George Bush lied about his service, and the commander was immediately defended and supported, long before any facts came in.
When the entire chain of command of Kerry’s, from an Admiral on down, signed sworn affidavits that they personally witnessed certain behaviours, the left immediately denounced them as liars and tools of the vast right-wing conspiracy, long before any facts came in.
And the list goes on. Anyone who doesn’t think that partisans on both sides let bias affect their judgement is, well… biased.
In your defense of believing whatever the hell you want to believe. “Facts be damned” is an integral part of that.
Strawman. Your claim was “The other guys are equally bad”. Your support of it was “Well, they would be if they could - let’s imagine an alternate universe where that’s true, and look, that’ll show it’s true!”
You do know what a false equivalence is, don’t you?
Go ahead. Show us the double standard there. Use cites.
If you’re not only going to refuse to represent the facts accurately, but lie about what was said, there’s little point in continuing this, is there? But
Gawdamighty, haven’t you been told enough times already about making stuff up?
You know, at this point I really don’t think you know the difference between fact and fantasy at all. There is no evidence whatever that you do.
You’re lying.
He was one of several,
And it shouldn’t. You know why, or should know but don’t care, why it was done. But that doesn’t matter to you. Facts are inconvenient to your belief system, organized as it apparently is around a complete (and, for someone in your situation, very weird) partisanism.
False equivalence again. The Clinton perjury was created by the prosecutor. The Libby perjury was the result of his thereby obstructing justice. But you know that, or should, and it doesn’t matter to you.
Ohh, those pesky facts again. Republicans voted, along with the Democrats, to eliminate it when Starr showed how badly it could be misused. They supported it during the Nixon years when its value was clear. But, if you even knew that, you don’t care.
You’re lying again. There was plenty of evidence long before that came out, and still is. It’s about the importance of facts, ya see. Oh, wait, you don’t.
You’re still on about that? You were shown ample, ample facts that demonstrate the Swiftboaters to be systematically lying, and now you’re even lying about who they were and what they did say.
Or is it that you simply can’t ever admit having been so badly fooled as the Swiftboat lie campaign and the WMD lie campaign showed you to have been? Is there still “something in the air” there?
Is it really just that simple - that, when the facts don’t support your quasi-religious belief in Democratic/liberal dastardliness, it’s easier to simply lie, even to your own self?
Aw, what the hell. Attempting to inform you is still as futile as it has ever been. Your credibility is your own problem. If you’re content to continue not to have any, you’re welcome.
Elvis, why don’t you just take this to the pit? If you want to scream liar constantly at another member of the SDMB, at least have the grace to do it in the right place.
Just a fact check: a.) She was covert. Both she and the CIA have confirmed this. b.) Armitage was one of several people leaking this information, including Libby, Rove, and Ari Fleischer. His leaking does not make their leaking any less wrong.
I forget, how’d that trial in the Senate turn out? Was he convicted? Or did a majority of Senators, including 10 Republicans, agree he was not guilty? Tell us Sam, what does not guilty mean in your universe?
As a matter of fact, the CIA won’t clear her book, last I heard. They won’t admit she worked there before some date, which escapes me, that is mentioned in the book. Doing so would endanger the contacts she had up to then. That sort of spells covert to me. Unfortunately the damage has been done. All enemies need do is search out all her contacts.
I’m not Elvis, but bringing forth those debunked points this late do make one wonder about the sincerity of the posters.
To me if the swiftboaters were accurate, new revelations would have supported their positions. IIRC months after the election medical reports showed Kerry was telling the truth. Before that, reporters did bother to check with the villagers in Vietnam and they reported Kerry to be more accurate. (There were reports that other “reporters” had come and asked questions to the same villagers, but it seems they did not get what they were looking for because their report never did surface.
As for Plame, Bill Maher, that recently criticized the Democrats for dumping on Fox news, had this to say:
Yes it is an Opinon, but the facts check, and this is mentioned because I do think the OP should show that to his father.
*IIRC One item that is not mentioned much, is that her investigations did cover Iran too. IMHO Bush fucked up our intelligence regarding the ones that were really looking for nukes.
I should have known not to use that example, because it would cause people like you and Elvis to see red and then refuse to read what I actually wrote. I tried to distance the discussion from the actual merits of either one by limiting it to the INITIAL response of Republicans and Democrats BEFORE the facts came in. I’m not trying to debate the facts. I’m pointing out that the initial reaction of Democrats to the Swiftboaters was to assume that they were lying scumbags until proven otherwise, and the initial reaction to Bush’s commander was that he was a stand-up guy until proven otherwise.
If you want balance, I’ll point out that Republicans did the same thing with Anita Hill and Paula Jones. Anita Hill was immediately portrayed as a jilted woman out to ‘get’ Thomas, and Paula Jones was immediately portrayed as a poor victim of evil Bill.
I can’t believe I even have to debate this. Is there anyone in this thread, other than the hyper-partisan, who doesn’t agree with me that both sides tend to use different standards when their own ox is being gored than when the other guys’ is?
Thanks for proving my point. I wonder what you’d say if I tried to ‘prove’ anything by linking to a Dennis Miller commentary? Or a video of Rush Limbaugh? Think you’d apply the same high standards of fairness and objectivity that you do when Bill Maher speaks?
Fine, can you explain others why facts are not supposed to be taken into account AFTER the initial response?
And after seeing back, I can still say they are lying scumbags.
And guess what? I do think the points against Anita Hill saying that she came too late forward with her accusations carry water, she should had made more noise earlier. However, regarding other accusations it is important to notice that David Brock, the main detractor of Anita Hill, has recanted his attacks on Hill and his defense of Thomas.
As for Paula Jones, her interview and :ahem: exposure in Penthouse magazine showed that she had been used by all, by Bill Clinton and then the Republicans, but as in the case on Anita Hill she should have talked earlier IMHO*.
What I do notice is that even agreeing with that does not take away the fact that AFTER we do have to check who was accurate. In more recent memory I have to say the left was.
That would be no problem since I would then shot down their points faster than a fat man sitting down. IOW, I do shoot the messengers only after I show how wrong they are. You can show us how wrong Maher is no? Besides, this tread is about showing someone else why to dislike Bush.
*That issue of Penthouse may be the only one in history that one can seriously say that one is checking it out because of the articles.
BTW, that response by Maher is anything but an “INITIAL response”.
An initial response or “jumping the gun” accusation could had been possible before the Scooter Libbi verdict or the very clear affirmation by the CIA that Plame was indeed a cover agent in the recent hearings.
**Now ** Maher’s points are based on the results of long investigations or delayed hearings.
It is clear to me that you are being terribly misleading in this discussion so far.
I should certainly think not. That propensity is why we go to all the trouble to hold trials before an impartial judge and try to make sure the jurors are disinterested parties.
I suspect that by far the overwhelming majority on this board gave GW and crew the benefit of any doubt from the time he was inaugurated until he started beating the drums for an invasion of Iraq.
Since then I see no reason whatever not to adopt extreme doubt as the default position. Time after time pronouncements are made that are corrected later, over and over.
Yeah, people have bias towards their own side. If that’s the sum total of your argument, there’s not argument.
If you’re saying that each of the two political parties responds to scandals in the other party the same way, you’re wrong. If you’re saying that each of the two political parties responds to scandals in their own parties in the same way, you’re wrong.
Who accused Clinton of sexual harassment? There was Paula Jones, and that was pretty much it, IIRC; most of the ‘accusers’ were third parties, who were themselves biased. And in the case of Paula Jones, the defense - accurate, btw - was that Clinton was so many layers removed from her in any chain of command as to eliminate the necessary employer/employee/workplace context for a harassment charge nonexistent.
But how many Dems at the time said the whole thing never happened, or that Clinton wasn’t being a sleazebag?
You see, right there is the difference between Dems and GOPers. GOPers just make shit up and stick the other side with it - or when it’s their own guy/gal, they make shit up, or raise trivialities to the level of a big deal, to muddy the waters in defense, then accuse the Dems of a partisan witch-hunt.
The Dems will at least not try to pretend the facts aren’t facts.
I’m still scratching my head about why this one’s important, beyond the damage to Berger’s career. Main consequence is, Berger will never have a job in a Dem Administration. Meanwhile, guys like Elliot Abrams (Iran-Contra) and John Negroponte (Salvador option) are comfortably ensconced in the Bush Administration.
Maybe you should read up on the Plame case.
A) She was covert. She traveled overseas under the guise of her ‘work’ for Brewster Jennings, and met with sources in the field while overseas. If you’ve got evidence to the contrary, produce it.
B) Whether or not Armitage was the first one with loose lips, the Libby trial documented a conspiracy run out of Cheney’s office to discredit Joe Wilson at all costs, went out of their way to dig up info such as Plame’s CIA role, and cheerfully outed Plame multiple times as part of their slime-Wilson attack.
What this shows, Sam, is your bias.
Y’know, when you’re claiming to evaluate the respective biases of each side, it helps to not view the world through the reflection off a fun-house mirror.
As a matter of fact, Starr was the classic example of a prosecutor run amok, trying his case in the press, holding press conferences in his driveway about the case every morning, leaking info like a sieve, looking for new stuff to go after Clinton on when the last thing didn’t pan out.
They were perfectly happy to threaten supposed possible victim Monica Lewinsky with massive jail time to get her to testify, and were quite happy to ruin her life - to forever define her as the girl with Clinton’s cock in her mouth - in order to, what, use her as a witness to build up a pattern of Presidential sexual harassment? Talk about loss of proportion. It was Ahab and [del]Moby[/del] Clinton’s Dick all over again.
Now that Clinton’s out of office, have any Republicans or nonpolitical prosecutors tried to prove that underlying charge, now that Clinton can’t use the power of his office to get in the way? Not really important, even if true, right?
We’ve all seen people indicted on a lot less than what’s publicly known about Dick Cheney’s involvement in the Plame outing. Fitz’ office gave away nothing in the way of juicy tidbits beyond what was needed to convict Libby of the charges, which basically amounted to lying and obstructing justice to protect his boss.
And the underlying charge? That the Vice President of the United States was willing to squash people like bugs, up to and including damaging our counterproliferation intelligence operations by outing covert CIA NOC agents, in order to discredit the revelation that the case for the Iraq War was founded on intel that was known to be bad. That we were lied into what was already becoming an open-ended war.
Your bias is pretty extreme here, Sam. I don’t think you’re qualified to examine the relative biases of the two parties.
Actually, the positions of each party have been pretty clear on this all along. The GOP never really liked the idea of the special prosecutor, and were happy to let it die at the end of the Clinton Administration, but were happy to softpedal their dislike of it while Starr’s guns were blazing away.
The Dems have generally been for it, but Starr demonstrated its flaws. They didn’t have the votes or the will to fight for a reworking of the law, so they didn’t fight the GOP when the latter killed it.
‘The left’: who??
As I said to you @156:
So who were the members of Congress, the former high officials, etc. who did this?
Because that’s what you had on the other side.
Because an awful lot of big-shot GOPers trumpeted the Swiftboaters’ findings.
Yeah, there’s partisans on both sides. And what you have is all sorts of GOP Congresscritters on the one hand, and…independent bloggers, on the other, behaving with equal levels of partisanship.
Cut the crap, Sam. The topic is your assertion that “Oh yeah? Well, the Democrats are all just as bad as the Republicans - or would be”. Not that bias is a human propensity. :rolleyes:
Obviously not, and there’s no secret why, either. You’re in the wrong fucking forum then, ain’tcha? Oh, wait, this IS the one designated for religious witnessing. My mistake, sorry.
Which they have, and which has been explained to you in great factual detail as well. The topic now is why you refuse even to consider the possibility. *Your * “initial response” is your *final * response as well, facts be damned.
Try defining and conducting the “debate” in even minimally honest terms then.
