Say Anything Blog

Looks like some serious butt kicking going on.  yeah, Carrick, the naysers are already at work even from sources that are typically not liberal.  Example: this is posted at worldnetdaily:

FROM JOSEPH FARAH’S G2 BULLETIN
How U.S. lost Basra
‘Iraq really is beginning to look like Vietnam’

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

Carrick: As usual, the MSM has been lying their heads off trying to sell this as a defeat, but here’s a recent update:

Update: Unilateral retreat:

Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said Sunday that he was pulling his fighters off the streets nationwide and called on the government to stop raids against his followers and free them from prison.

The real good news is that this victory is the result of ground action by the Iraqi Army, with nothing more than air support from our guys.
The Dem chickens are coming home to roost.

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

US troops in the DOD video are fighting who for whom?

Friends, season Six.

maliki------------ahmadinejad

Actually WOOF, most were Arabs.  The US troops were mostly support and advisors.

Want some cheese with those sour grapes?

Woof: I’m sure you’re real glad our side winning, right, leftie?

What’s good for America is bad for the lefties.

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

In case you guys haven’t heard, the battle is not going well for the Mahdi Army.

Good! Mahdi is evil. Anybody fighting in his name will either quit be given a ticket to Hell by our United States Marine Corps and by the Iraqi Security Forces.

Semper Fi!

WOOF - US troops in the DOD video are fighting who for whom?

They’re killing evil Muslims. Buck up son! This is a good thing for all of us.

Ride to the sound of the guns!

Thanks.  There’s nothing like memories of combat to bring out the testosterone!

Would it shock anyone to know that Maliqi is probably closer to the Iranians than is Al Sadr? I think any attempt to bring law and order to Basra should be supported but to frame this as good guys vs. bad guys is typically short sighted.

"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*

What’s short sighted is crapping all over every effort to win the war in Iraq, Mike.

You mistake cynicism born of political convenience for good judgment.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

My reading indicates the Iraqi army has occupied less than a quarter of Basra, your knuckle-dragging post notwithstanding.

Yeah, yeah....the Liberal MSM.....sure.

WASHINGTON—The U.S. suffered a major strategic military setback in Basra yesterday if its goal is truly to turn over Iraq to the Iraqi army – a goal about which some of the war’s biggest defenders are beginning to question, reports Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

One well-paced military source told G2 Bulletin the initial fight over the Iraqi town went like this: “We lost Basra last night. An Iraqi army commander was told by the local Madhi army commander to lay down all their weapons, surrender all their uniforms, surrender their equipment and then there would be no trouble. The Iraqi army did just that.”

“So we lost Basra faster than we lost Da Nang in 1975,” he continued.

And this senior officer is not alone in observing parallels to Vietnam.

The “surge,” while without question successful at reducing U.S. casualties and increasing the costs of war for the terrorists, is somewhat akin to Lyndon B. Johnson’s bid to escalate the war by increasing the number of ground troops but in continuing to restrict their actions in destroying the enemy, say some frustrated U.S. troops and officers.

Likewise, some veterans of the conflict, including those who genuinely believe the war against Islamo-fascists was just and necessary, say the rules of engagement are mystifying – leaving some to wonder if military victory is actually the goal.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60267

What’s short sighted is crapping all over every effort to win the war in Iraq, Mike.

I understand how you feel but I don’t see a battle between Shi’ite factions as having much to do with winning the war. Eliminating al Sadr from the competition for power and influence would bring the process a step closer to resolution but it won’t likely be a favourable resolution for America I wouldn’t think.

"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*

MikeAdamson:

I understand how you feel but I don’t see a battle between Shi’ite
factions as having much to do with winning the war. Eliminating al Sadr
from the competition for power and influence would bring the process a step
closer to resolution but it won’t likely be a favourable resolution for
America I wouldn’t think.

Sure, Mike.

Thinks are so much more peachy keen if we have unlawful militia running importance commerce centers in Iraq. 

GMAB.

That’s absolutely hilarious. Hannitized is now quoting from World Net Daily! 

Tit for tat, check out the New York Times.  Somebody must have forgot to send them the memo.

I don’t think that the the MSM accounts are all completely biased on this.  But based on anything I’ve seen, the WND story suggests there’s at least one person pulling crap out of the air.  Did that video look like the Iraqis had lain down their weapons?

the WND story suggests there’s at least one person pulling crap out of the air.  Did that video look like the Iraqis had lain down their weapons?

Well that’s not the point of my comment Carrick.  The point is that Robs tired cries of MSM bias are often just hypersensitive crybaby whining.  The same type of cries the Blacks make a lot of the time.

I got your basic point.  But it is factually accurate to state that the majority of reporters identify themselves as liberal (somewhere around 80%), and that this inherently leads to bias in reporting.  That’s a basic rule of human nature.

Pointing out something that is factually true is hardly “hypersensitive crybaby whining”.  Not sure what your beef is against Rob, but it makes you look like an idiot.

But it is factually accurate to state that the majority of reporters identify themselves as liberal (somewhere around 80%), and that this inherently leads to bias in reporting.  That’s a basic rule of human nature.

Pointing out something that is factually true is hardly “hypersensitive crybaby whining”.

Jeezus.

Here lets try that in another way that might help you see the illogical thinking in that.

But it is factually accurate to state that the majority of Americans identify themselves as white (somewhere around 80%), and that this inherently leads to bias and bigotry.  That’s a basic rule of human nature.

Pointing out something that is factually true is hardly “hypersensitive crybaby whining”.

Don’t worry C, I don’t expect you to get it.

Not sure what your beef is against Rob, but it makes you look like an idiot.

I don’t really like it when people push propaganda for the sake of tearing down their political opponents.  It’s sort of underhanded and there is something dirty in his tone that is sort of disgusting.  Does that help you?

Liberalism isn’t a race, it’s a philosophical world view. Only an argumentative fool like yourself would argue that one’s world view does not affect ones perception of it. 

And obviously our life experience affects how we view others.  That indeed is “bias”.  That doesn’t make us a bigot though.  That’s just a silly little strawman that you put up as cover for your stupid argument.

I don’t really like it when people push propaganda for the sake of tearing down their political opponents. 

That would be you, that you are describing actually.  Add to that immature asshole, and we’ve described your behavior on this blog to a tee.

Here’s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry">a definition of bigot:</b> A person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

That sounds like you H.

Liberalism isn’t a race, it’s a philosophical world view. Only an argumentative fool like yourself would argue that one’s world view does not affect ones perception of it.

And obviously our life experience affects how we view others.

Well, since you have decided to throw the first punch, I might as well cooperate.

Listen, dip shit.  I can’t help you understand the parallels that exist between philosophical similarities between how people see the world.  What results from a bias, is often bigotry.  Look at half the comments on this site. 

Prejudice runs rampant on this site, Rob being the first to offer his pre judgement.  Just look at the last sentence of this post, you drooling baboon.

I can’t help that you are stupid.  I can only attempt to have dialogue with you.  The fact that you are too stupid to understand the depth in which I speak does not reflect badly on me, it reflects badly on you.  The fact that you confuse your ignorance for intelligence is hysterical.

HAHAHAHHAHA!!!!

Thanks for the childish rant, H.  Demonstrated my point to the “T”.

Here, monkey brains.  Educate yourself.

What does preconceived mean?  Prejudiced maybe?  What does prejudice have in common with bigotry?

Effects of biases

A bias could lead one to accept or deny the truth of a claim, not on the basis of the strength of the arguments in support of the claim themselves, but because of the extent of the claim’s correspondence with one’s own preconceived ideas. This is called confirmation bias.
[edit]Forms of biases

These are just a few popular ones.
Class: bias favoring one social class and bias ignoring social or class divisions.
Commercial: advertising, coverage of political campaigns favoring corporate interests, or reporting favoring media owner interests.
Cognitive bias
Cultural bias: interpreting and judging phenomena in terms particular to one’s own culture.
Ethnic or racial: racism, nationalism, regionalism and tribalism.
Geographical: describing a dispute as it is conducted in one country, when the dispute is framed differently elsewhere.
Inductive bias
Media bias: real or perceived bias of journalists and news producers within the mass media, in the selection of which events will be reported and how they are covered
Nationalistic: favoring or opposing the interests or views of a particular nation.
Gender: including sexism and heteronormativity.
Linguistic: bias, favoring certain languages
Political: bias in favor of or against a particular political party, philosophy, policy or candidate.
Religious: bias for or against religion, faith or beliefs;
Sensationalist: favoring the exceptional over the ordinary. This includes emphasizing, distorting, or fabricating exceptional news to boost commercial ratings.
Scientific (including anti-scientific and scientific skepticism): favoring (or disfavoring) a scientist, inventor, or theory for non-scientific reasons. This can also include excessive favoring (or disfavoring) prevalent scientific opinion, if in doing so, notable viewpoints are no longer being treated neutrally.
Statistical: one example is a biased sample.
Systematic: bias resulting from a flaw integral to the system within which the bias arises (for example, an incorrectly calibrated thermostat may consistently read — that is ‘be biased’ — several degrees hotter or colder than actual temperature). As a consequence, systematic bias commonly leads to systematic errors, as opposed to random errors, which tend to cancel one another out.

Thanks for the childish rant, H.  Demonstrated my point to the “T”.

Congratulations C.  You have proved that when you insult someone by calling them names, they respond in kind.

Youre a regular einstein.

BTW, by pretending to laugh at my response only demonstrates that you take what you give.  Im your huckleberry padna.  I fight back, you don’t like that though....do you?

You are they typical right-wing coward that throws the first punch then runs to the teacher when you get your nose punched.

You idiot.

To address your sole “adult” point, “What results from a bias, is often bigotry.”

Bias is inherent in everything we do. All of us. 

In the vast majority of those cases this bias does not translate into bigotry.

But I would suggest that in addition to your bias, you are a bigot. Which is why you have such a hard time allowing Rob to state his own opinions without you throwing in your 2-cents worth. You indeed are “a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.”

H:

BTW, by pretending to laugh at my response

Believe me.  I wasn’t pretending!!!!  Keep up your infantile behavior though, if you think it makes you the superior intellect.

Did you read the effects of bias, you ignorant moron?

Or are you going to continue to cry that I hit back?

H:

Or are you going to continue to cry that I hit back?

"cry" as from laughter perhaps.

But you really are such a little boy emotionally.

You make a half-witted argument about bias=bigotry and you expect anything more than a dismissive shrug from me over that?

You really need to quit taking yourself so seriously.  I can guarantee you that we have a LONG time ago.

I should note that H, absent any ability to make a coherent argument of his own, resorts to cut and paste.

Classic.

In the vast majority of those cases this bias does not translate into bigotry.

Care to provide any evidence of numbers?  Could you possibly have any fact to refer to in order to support your claim?  Of course not.

You are typical C.  I have debated guys like you forever...i enjoy it.  You think that you can throw up and barf out some ridiculous fact without supporting it? 

Bullshit.  Either admit that it is your opinion or back it up.  You fucked with the wrong bull.  I am not stupid enough to let you get away with your faux intelligence.

But I would suggest that in addition to your bias, you are a bigot. Which is why you have such a hard time allowing Rob to state his own opinions without you throwing in your 2-cents worth.

Carrick, on the many good points Rob makes, I say nothing.  I only offer my “2 cents” when he is being a propagandist dick-head.

The last line on THIS THREAD is bigotry.  Most of the comments of this site are BIGOTED.  You clearly don’t understand the relationship between prejudice and bigotry.

NOT.  MY.  FAULT.

Besides, I offer polite conversation to Rob.  He ignores it.  But fine.  I am a adult C.  I get mad and get over it.  I don’t like Robs bullshit, but I forgive him, because he is only human.

You dont know me dude, quit pretending.  That is the only thing that looks foolish.  Responding to partisan propaganda is not.

I should note that H, absent any ability to make a coherent argument of his own, resorts to cut and paste.

Classic.

GAWD.  Are you 12?

Dude, did you ever belong to a debate class?  ITS CALLED EVIDENCE, SOURCE MATERIAL.

YOU.  ARE.  AN.  IDIOT.

BTW,

I am looking forward to your cut and paste and I will not condemn you for it.

You are a typical Republican who makes an argument and doesnt back it up and then has the audacity to criticize an Dem for providing evidence??

Fucking hysterical.

I don’t really like it when people push propaganda for the sake of tearing down their political opponents.  It’s sort of underhanded and there is something dirty in his tone that is sort of disgusting.  Does that help you?

You don’t really have room to call anyone’s tone dirty.

You’re a real asshole H, and you have a MASSIVE problem with people disagreeing with you. Even when someone has defended you (or at the very least your position) in the very last post...you have no problem shitting on them at the very next time they disagree with you.

You have no problem lying about what people have said to smear them, and you throw around “liar” and “racist” like people throw beads at Mardi Gras. There is nothing more underhanded than constantly calling those who disagree with you bigots.

Carrick is right. You jump from thread to thread calling Rob names, even if he’s not saying anything objectionable. It’s gotten beyond childish. It’s reminiscent of a kid who constantly punches his “crush” in grade school.

Believe me.  I wasn’t pretending!!!!  Keep up your infantile behavior though, if you think it makes you the superior intellect.

You idiot.  This is a BLOG.  It is probably 12am your time, you dip shit.  Do you think you are on CNN or something?  Give me a break.

Look, you are the one who started throwing serious insults.  That is what I have come to expect from right-wingers.  You think you have the right to insult others and expect them to remain silent.

Again, you are an idiot if you think anyone is going to allow you to pretend that you are some sort of mature scholar.  Who do you think you are kidding, but yourself?

I don’t give 2 cents what anyone thinks of me loosing my temper.  It’s a blog...you idiot.

The fact of the mater is, you can’t debate on the merits.

H:

Care to provide any evidence of numbers? Could you possibly have any fact to refer to in order to support your claim? Of course not.

That my assertion is true is simple and obvious, and in fact a tautology.  Bias the result of our world experiences.  We only know about things we have experienced in some manner, not those that we haven’t.

Bigotry, as the definition of the word suggests, is an extreme expression of that bias, and implies an intolerance to views other than ones own (e..g., your attitude).  Bigotry an extreme, definitionally, most occurrences of bias are mundane and cannot be examples of bigotry. 

But go ahead.  You can’t answer a logical argument with one of your own.  Once again demonstrate that you are little more than an

You are typical C. I have debated guys like you forever...i enjoy it.

You are incapable of real debate.  And I’m pretty sure you’ve not debated many people like me.  But whatever, I’m utterly unimpressed with you and your supposed reasoning capabilities in any case.

As to your “debate” style, I suppose it wouldn’t be a news flash that people who are good at debate—not you—can do so without the incessant infantile name calling?

Ignoring the rest of your little tirade, as it deserves.

You’re a real asshole H,

Hi Kenny, how are you tonight?

and you have a MASSIVE problem with people disagreeing with you. Even when someone has defended you (or at the very least your position) in the very last post...you have no problem shitting on them at the very next time they disagree with you.

What are you talking about?  Who did I “shit” on who agreed with me?  Are you talking about the guy who said I wasn’t being honest because I didn’t know liberals were voter frauds?

You always do this, and fail to provide links. 

If you are going to but in during an argument.  Why don’t you keep on topic?  Ask your lil buddy to refer to evidence to support his claim.

I did.  Not only did I provice evidence, but then I was laughed at for it.  That is what I have to deal with on a regular basis Kenny.

And none of you guys smack down your own side for doing things that are 10 times worse than anything I do.  I loose my cool when people call me names Kenny.  Congratulations, you figured it out.

SO....WHAT?

Get back to the debate or step off.

H:

You idiot.  This is a BLOG.  It is probably 12am your time, you dip shit.  Do you think you are on CNN or something?  Give me a break.

This is an amazing bit of word salad on your part.  Totally lacking in anything approaching coherency.

Let’s see: you assert 1) I’m an idiot.  2) This is a blog.  3) An assumption about my time zone. 4) A question of whether I’m on a network broadcast or not (puzzle me where that came from).  Then 5) you need a break.

Well take a break fool.  LOL.  You didn’t need the incoherent mumbling preceding it or my permission.  Go.

Look, you are the one who started throwing serious insults.

But seriously, you’ve been nothing but the model for ill behavior from the first day you showed up on this blog.  You have NO ROOM to complain about how others treat you here. 

Considered how ill-tempered you are, the only reason you haven’t been banned is you are the quintessential model of a hate-filled lefty.  All emotion, no logic.  You make your side look bad, so Rob keeps you around.

Smart on his part, huh?

H:

I loose my cool when people call me names

I haven’t actually called you a “name” yet.

I’ve characterized you as I see you, which is a whinny, immature, ill-tempered liberal.

Have I left anything out?  Probably.  You might take that as an insult, but it is how I view you at this point.

And I assure you I am laughing.  Quietly, because my wife is asleep.

Speaking of hate-filled lefties:

ou jump from thread to thread calling Rob names, even if he’s not saying anything objectionable. It’s gotten beyond childish. It’s reminiscent of a kid who constantly punches his “crush” in grade school.

You know what Kenny.  Why don’t you grow up for a damn change.  Read the comment by Rob, below.

I’m sure the liberals in the crowd can conjure reasons why this is bad news, though.

Now, I ask you.....is that insulting?  Yes.  Is it prejudiced?  Yes.  Is there a similarity between prejudice and bigotry?  YES. 

Does being a bigot mean you are a racist?  NO.  Again, I can’t help you guys if you don’t understand the meaning of words.  I dont call people racists unless they are acting like one.

Rob has no problem calling Obama a racist.  He should be very careful that people aren’t so liberal with the word when it applies to him...right?

I supported surge.  I don’t need guys like Rob crapping on Liberals when they make arguments.  His ignorance to valid arguments is the result of a bias, THAT HE HAS.

This is a fundamental problem in our country right now.  Rob is king of this sort of disease.

I supported the surge,....this crap doesn’t stick to me, but I get the label anyway.  Just as whites get the racist label. 

Carrick can’t handle the similarities and he tried to make a argument.  He lost.

Just look at his last post.  Crying to ME for calling HIM names when he was the initial offender.  Typical.

I haven’t actually called you a “name” yet.

Well, that would be what we call a lie in my family.  But I am certain that in yours its par for the course, business as usual to lie and consider it to be nothing.

Does this sentence look familiar?

Only an argumentative fool like yourself would argue that one’s world view does not affect ones perception of it.

Now.  I wish your wife could wake up and peek over your shoulder to watch you hide behind a computer to make that sort of stupid statement.

Here you are, late at night, calling a dude names on a computer and denying it.  The best part, you are doing it while pretending you are better than your behavior.  Pathetic, but I enjoy revealing your reality to you.

I’ve characterized you as I see you, which is a whinny, immature, ill-tempered liberal.

OK, got it.  What do you see yourself as C?  That is what you should be concerned about, because I don’t care that i loose my cool when some right-wing prick picks a fight with me.  Do you understand?

My handle is Hannitized for a reason.  I have matured into the fierce asshole Hannity is.  But here is the thing.....im glad.

Because I can debate idiots like you who think they are bigger than they are.

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?  You won’t provide it, because making phony statements is who you are.  You make phony statements, and phony excuses to live your phony life.

Have I left anything out?  Probably.  You might take that as an insult, but it is how I view you at this point.

And guess how I see you?  Hiding behind your computer, pretending to be more than you are.

H:

Rob has no problem calling Obama a racist.

Where exactly has Rob called Obama a racist? 

Just look at his last post.  Crying to ME for calling HIM names when he was the initial offender.  Typical

Dude I wasn’t crying about anything. I can take it, you can’t, and you admitted it.  I am merely calling you out for how you are behaving.  You don’t like that… you can leave or start acting like an adult.

Does being a bigot mean you are a racist?

If the bigotry is race related, of course it does.

Again, I can’t help you guys if you don’t understand the meaning of words.

And you wonder why you rub people the wrong way.  Not only is this condescending, it’s plain wrong.  You clearly don’t fully appreciate the nuances of the words yourself.  You need to quit acting like an ignoramus.

I said:

I’m sure the liberals in the crowd can conjure reasons why this is bad news, though.

And I was right.  We’ve had voluntary opinions from Mike Adamson and WOOF for why this is a bad thing.

You think being called an “argumentative fool” is inappropriate in your case?

First if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t try and wear it.  Secondly, you are argumentative.  Constantly.  How can you deny that? And you are a fool.  You’ve made that plain over and over on this blog.

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

I knew you wouldn’t respond to a logical argument.  Are you even capable of that?

Hiding behind your computer, pretending to be more than you are.

As if I care.

I owe Rob an apology for my comments in this post.

Rob, I thought you had written this post.  I could have sworn I checked this time, but as it turns out, it was Carrick who made the prejudiced statement, not you.

If you care, you have my apologies.

By the way, if a thing is true logically, you don’t need data to confirm it.

Things that follow from the definition of the words are examples of tautologies.  It is a tautological fact that bigotry is uncommon compared to bias.

If you are as smart as you like to claim you are, you should have no problem following that reasoning.

Carrick,

Drop all the BS for a moment.  Let’s get back to the debate.

You said:

But it is factually accurate to state that the majority of reporters identify themselves as liberal (somewhere around 80%), and that this inherently leads to bias in reporting.

Here is the type of arrogant, and frequent, remarks made from the right that often go unnoticed and accepted.

What evidence does Carrick offer to suggest it is logical to conclude large populations of a majority lead to bias?  None.

Now, when I make an argument to suggest that it is hypersensitivity to suggest bias is as rampant as some believe, (thinking Rob had made this post), as some blacks do, Carrick refuses to accept this.

Why?  He does this for two reasons.  1) It’s inconvenient to his argument to suggest that a majority may not lead to a biased point of view.

However, when I turn his argument around on him by replacing black and white with the world liberal and republican, his argument flip flops.

He argues that it is human nature to be biased when surrounded by such a majority.  But heavens to Betsy does it ever bother him to think that blacks might feel the same way.  And they do.

But, here is the result.  Carrick suggests that it is human nature for Liberals to be biased, but not Whites.

Carrick argues that bias does not lead to bigotry, but I proved that it does.  He didnt like that either.

His response is first anger, and frustration so he insults me,.  Now he argues that “In the vast majority of those cases this bias does not translate into bigotry.”

He flat out contradicts himself when it comes to human nature of being in a majority, because in his mind, race is different from thinking about politics.

Got it?  Black people think and view the world, just as whites do.  This is why we all get along so well.  Because the blacks in American accepted our culture and never created their own out of a sense of identity crisis.

What is revealed is a profound ignorance to the plight of blacks in this country and also a bigotry towards liberals.  Because Liberals are not allowed to make a logical argument that contends with their desire to see Iraq as a sensational victory for Bush.

it was Carrick who made the prejudiced statement,

You seem to have trouble with words so let me help you.

A “prejudice” is an opinion that is not based by reason or prior experience. 

Clearly, in that sense, the statement I made was not prejudiced.  In fact not only was it not prejudiced, it was an accurate prediction, as we have seen.

By the way, if a thing is true logically, you don’t need data to confirm it

That a big IF there my friend.  What is your formula for verifying its truth?

Hannitized, you cut and paste the word “bias”, but I’m starting to think you still don’t understand its meaning.

Bias, regardless of how you want to interpret it, is not a pejorative term It is merely a statement that people have preconceptions based on their past experiences.  We all have biases.  Period.  Because we’re humans, and therefore not all-knowing.  This is standard cognitive psych, and there is a huge body of data on it.  If you are really interested, go onto google scholar and look for “effects observer bias psychology”.  You’ll find about 37,500 articles there.

It’s not my responsibility to teach you things you don’t know.  So go too it, if you really care.

Bigotry on the other hand is a pejorative term.  It describes people who are narrow minded and intolerant of people who are different than them. 

So yes I do stand by the statement “Clearly if 80% of the media are liberals, then clearly there is a liberal bias in the media, by definition.” Nobody who understands anything about the topic of bias in observation would argue otherwise.

What is your formula for verifying its truth?

That it follow the Euclidean rules of logic of course.  Don’t they teach you kids logic courses any more?  See this.

A “prejudice” is an opinion that is not based by reason or prior experience.

Flat WRONG.  Your response is a classic liberals understanding of the word prejudice. 

You described one form of prejudice there are also valuable prejudice that has served man throughout history that has been essential to their survival.  And by the way, I think your prejudice was based upon a bias you have, not an informed opinion of your opponents position.

If I may be so bold to recommend a book to you.

In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas (Hardcover)

Clearly, in that sense, the statement I made was not prejudiced.  In fact not only was it not prejudiced, it was an accurate prediction, as we have seen.

What we have here folks, is a bad case of mistaken identity.  What do we know of bias?  Or rather, what do we know as effects of bias?

Effects of biases

A bias could lead one to accept or deny the truth of a claim, not on the basis of the strength of the arguments in support of the claim themselves, but because of the extent of the claim’s correspondence with one’s own preconceived ideas. This is called confirmation bias.

Now, can we say that a Republican made a logical argument about the problem in Basra and Iraq?  Yes.

Does this fit with the desired result of C?  No, therefore, any criticism of IT is not out of any truth that may exist, but because of “their” bias.

You see how this works?  I have seen it a million times.

Your welcome.

You are welcome....is what I meant to say.  Of course.

You’re wrong about this:

Carrick argues that bias does not lead to bigotry, but I proved that it does

No you did not prove that.  In fact, you are completely and unambiguously mistaken.

Carrick suggests that it is human nature for Liberals to be biased, but not Whites.

I never said such a thing.  In fact I agree that whites, like all other groups, have inherent biases associated with differences in their experiences.

He argues that it is human nature to be biased when surrounded by such a majority.  But heavens to Betsy does it ever bother him to think that blacks might feel the same way.  And they do.

You’re pulling stuff out of the air now.  What are you even on about?  This is completely nonsensical and does not resemble any arguments that I made.

Carrick suggests that it is human nature for Liberals to be biased, but not Whites.

More nonsense.  Never said that either.

He flat out contradicts himself when it comes to human nature of being in a majority, because in his mind, race is different from thinking about politics.

What I said was ones race or ethnicity is a different thing than one’s world view.  They clearly are very different things, and trying to compare them is like comparing apples and oranges.  You are born to a race or ethnic group, your world view is something you get to decide on.

You’ve really garbled it up totally.

H:

You described one form of prejudice there are also valuable prejudice that has served man throughout history that has been essential to their survival. 

So?  How is that inconsistent with a “prejudice” is an opinion that is not based by reason or prior experience?

The two are in no way mutually incompatible.  And indeed my definition is the classic definition of the word “prejudice”, which once again you’ve mistakenly assumed derogatory connotations where there were none.

I’m not sure what you are on about regarding the rest.  You’ve not come up with a separate definition of prejudice, but rather simply argued that it can be an adaptive behavior.

Of course it can.

But given the standard definition of prejudice, what I said was not prejudicial:  It was based on years of similar experiences with the nay-sayers on the left.  Who would upon hearing any good news try to explain to use why it was in fact “bad news”.

Finally to this, then bed:

Now, can we say that a Republican made a logical argument about the problem in Basra and Iraq?  Yes.

We both agree with this statement.

What you missed is that simply because you can find an example of where a Republican (presumably) made a negative statement about Basra and Iraq, that you can’t conclude from this that there isn’t a bias in the media towards Iraq.

This is a place where a case study would be needed to demonstrate it one way or another.  And as I mentioned there are plenty of studies about the bigger issue of a liberal bias in the media.  Given a liberal bias in the media (again remind yourself of the sense in which the word is used), it follows logically that a liberal media would have a liberal bias towards the war.

So?  How is that inconsistent with a “prejudice” is an opinion that is not based by reason or prior experience?

There are types of prejudices where reason has been employed.

No you did not prove that.  In fact, you are completely and unambiguously mistaken. (Proving bias can lead to bigotry)

Put aside your confusion with racial bigotry for a moment and consider what bigotry is.

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding ideology.

I never said such a thing.  In fact I agree that whites, like all other groups, have inherent biases associated with differences in their experiences.

You argued that race is not the same thing as a world view.  But the result of being another race CAN change your world view.  You must either agree that the argument is similar or it is different.

If you say groups can have biases, then.....there you have it.

You’re pulling stuff out of the air now.  What are you even on about?

Crybaby whiners who say the media is bias compared to blacks who cry whites are bigots.

I just took a really long time forcing you to admit that in your mind, bias does not lead to bigotry.....at least when it comes to whites on blacks.

But you inversely feel that bias leads to bigotry for liberals....because...because...its just human nature.

Its really very simple.

As of this AM, Sadr is calling for mercy. Good job, woofie, sannitized, your heroes are getting the shit kicked out of them. By Iraqis. By Shia’ Iraqis.

Mike, you would be screech&wailing that Maliki is simply a puppet of America if he refused to have relations with Iran and Syria. And you are screech&wailing that he is in bed with the enemy. Pick one.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

We and the Iraqis are winning; beating the terrorists and radicals.  He ran away once, now he is calling retreat and hiding yet again!

Communism is evil

What are you talking about?  Who did I “shit” on who agreed with me?  Are you talking about the guy who said I wasn’t being honest because I didn’t know liberals were voter frauds?

After I defended you 3 or 4 times, you had no problem shitting on me the next time I disagreed with you. Neimann ALSO defended you, but you have no problem calling him a liar either. I’m sure there are more, but those are the biggest ones.

You always do this, and fail to provide links. 

I have never once failed to provide links. Even once I got tired of your stupidity in the Obama crap, I linked to the Trinity web site. After the 300 millionth time I just got tired of you saying I’d never linked to anything (even when you’d responded to those links, and figured, “Why bother with such a dishonest twat?”

If you are going to but in during an argument.  Why don’t you keep on topic?  Ask your lil buddy to refer to evidence to support his claim.

You called rob a liar. I called you a douchebag. We’re all insulting each other, and ignoring the Basra deal...sooooooo…

In all seriousness, I have gotten into it with Carrick, and called Carrick a liar. This is the bullshit I’m talking about. ANYONE who disagrees with you is some right wing hack, and all right wingers are EEEVIL. It’s tiring. And it’s stupid. You’re too lazy and too dishonest to see people as humans with opposing viewpoints...so of COURSE Carrick and I are right wing buddies who agree on everything! Childish.

I did.  Not only did I provice evidence, but then I was laughed at for it.  That is what I have to deal with on a regular basis Kenny.

Can you hear me playing the violin for you? Cause it’s BEAUTIFUL. Even IF I accept your version of events (I don’t), that’s what you get for doing the same to others. What goes around…

And none of you guys smack down your own side for doing things that are 10 times worse than anything I do.  I loose my cool when people call me names Kenny.  Congratulations, you figured it out.

Oh piss off, you whiny little twat. You get pissed off that people have the temerity to disagree with you. And you’re a complete jackass about it from the word go. If you don’t wish to be called names, perhaps you should stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a racist and a liar?

I know you’re not going to talk to ME about going against my “own side”. I have sparred against Carrick, Ken, Pparets, Neiman, and even Rob, and (except for Rob), it’s not always cordial. I called both Carrick and Pparets on ignoring evidence (like I have you), and I called Ken and Neiman spoiled children. I’ve disagreed with everyone on this board at least once. When have YOU shot down a leftist?

You know what Kenny.  Why don’t you grow up for a damn change.  Read the comment by Rob, below.

I’m sure the liberals in the crowd can conjure reasons why this is bad news, though.

Now, I ask you.....is that insulting?  Yes.  Is it prejudiced?  Yes.  Is there a similarity between prejudice and bigotry?  YES. 

Is it insulting? Sure. So what? Prejudiced? Sure. Why not? Bigoted? Um, hardly. Rob’s comments might be terrible if he didn’t have a reason for them. But Anarchist Vegetarian and Socialist have openly cheered for Al Quida on this board. Did he say “All you worthless leftists will find this bad!”? No. Did he say all leftists would find it bad news? No.

Truth is a wonderful defense.

Does being a bigot mean you are a racist?  NO.  Again, I can’t help you guys if you don’t understand the meaning of words.  I dont call people racists unless they are acting like one.

You called Neimann a racist. You called Ken a racist (and since you kept calling him Kenny, I got it by proxy). You even have called Rob a racist. None of them have deserved it. “Acting like a racist” is of course, acting in a way H doesn’t like.

Rob has no problem calling Obama a racist.  He should be very careful that people aren’t so liberal with the word when it applies to him...right?

Cite one time. Last time you “quoted” Rob (that I remember), you quoted someone completely different (that Rob gave credit to) and attributed it to Rob (ignoring that it was clearly marked as “NOT HIS”. If you provide a quote...please provide a link. Since you like links so much!

Got it?  Black people think and view the world, just as whites do.  This is why we all get along so well.  Because the blacks in American accepted our culture and never created their own out of a sense of identity crisis.

What world do you live in? I mean really. “We all get along so well?” I don’t even know how to respond to such a surreal statement.

What is revealed is a profound ignorance to the plight of blacks in this country and also a bigotry towards liberals.  Because Liberals are not allowed to make a logical argument that contends with their desire to see Iraq as a sensational victory for Bush.

There is no “plight of blacks” anymore. Sorry. Racism is irrelevant in this day and age. And blacks were doing better as a community in the days of King. Lower drop out rates, lower crime, better families, etc. Pointing out that liberal ideas are stupid is not “bigoted”. ALL liberal ideas ARE stupid. And that liberals want to play partisan politics to deny Bush a victory in Iraq...tells us all we need to know about the liberal movement.

Kenny: Hannitized is a dishonest troll. With the exception of certain Ron Paul supporters, seldom has anyone here typed so much and said so little!
The name calling, the bad behavior (the bad spelling), indicate adolescence, which may or may not reflect his actual years (he claims to be 40). The fact that his constant ragging on Rob is baseless, but does not deter him, has worn terribly thin. (Did I mention he was an ungrateful troll, as well?)

I have given up trying to enlighten it. I will still occasionally mock it for its stupidity or dishonesty, but I’ve given up trying to engage it in honest debate, because as you have seen, honesty is not returned in kind.

Please don’t feed the trolls.

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

I’m sure the liberals in the crowd can conjure reasons why this is bad news, though.

And both Woof and Mike responded, indeed providing why it was bad news. So, grow up H.

Carrick...it took me a few minutes to figure out GMAB. I still think that efforts to bring law and order to Basra should be supported but I cringe every time I read “we’re winning” when I’m not so sure that there is a “we” in the fight. The Maliki government obviously enjoys official American support and al Sadr is obviously not a friend but I’m sure you’ll agree that the situation is more complicated than that.

2H9...you will not agree that the situation is more complicated although you’ll probably be touting the Baathists as America’s friends in a few years. I hope that screeching didn’t hurt your ears.

"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*

...I’m not so sure that there is a “we” in the
fight.

Interesting.  When US troops were doing all or most of the fighting, the lefties complained about that, and now that the Iraqi Army is pretty much independent, that’s not good, either.  What lefties are really preaching is defeat; it becomes more plain with every twist and spin in their story.

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

Mike, some comments:

First, Iraq cannon survive as a democracy without being able to control it’s major towns.  Returning Basra to Iraqi to control is thus essential to the future of Iraq.

Secondly, this has been an operation carried out by the Iraqi army.  It clearly illustrates where they can go alone and where they need help:  air support no surprise. 

Third, even if Maliki were closely aligned with Iran, so what?  Last I checked, he is not the dictator of Iraq, but just it’s president, and there are plenty who are very anti Iranian.

Fourth, Sadr is hiding in Iran, and he gets material support from them, and he is calling for a theocracy modeled after the Iranian government.

In other words, Sadr is an ally of Iran who opposes the current status quo in Iraq.  It is a good thing if he continues to lose power, rather than gain in. 

Yes things are complex, but when one uses words like “winning” and “losing”, I have to remind them this isn’t a basketball game with a simple scorecard.  You are right that the militias provided a balance against the central government, this was especially important when the central government stood back and allows the massacre of Sunnis by Shi’ite militia.

But in the end, the armed militia are the source of the lawlessness and even genocidal behavior that has sometimes been observed in Iraq.  The ending of this militia rule and the establishing the strength of Iraq’s army are both very positive developments. Reducing Sadr’s influence is just a bonus prize.

There is no “plight of blacks” anymore. Sorry. Racism is irrelevant in this day and age.

Pretty much true, except for the leftie race hustlers; they need to keep selling the “plight” and the propaganda of white racism.  The real “racist problem” today is black racism, created by the race hustlers for political gain.

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

I still think that efforts to bring law and order to Basra should be supported but I cringe every time I read “we’re winning”

StrategyPage.com had a good article (my Link Fu is weak today) on the battle between the largely Shiite govt and the Shiite Mahdi and Sadr warlords.  Religiouosly members of the govt are in rough agreement with Mahdi and Sadr AND rocking the boat is bad… up to a point.  The Iraq govt has reached that point is moving to quash warlords for the sake of law and order.  SOP for hundreds of generations has been to look the other way or pay them money to leave you and yours alone. 

The word ‘winning’ is cringe worthy but we have a potential ally recognizing a mutual threat.  Good news for my kids.  (I think this will be a long war.)

Carrick
Trolls crap where they eat.  Don’t feed the trolls.

Good news for my kids.  (I think this will be a long war.)

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

At the risk of a feeding, realize I also believe we’ve been at the war a good long time before Bush was elected.  So please don’t quote me out of context again.

Fly, remember that comment about trolls crapping where they eat?  That applies in spades to the resident Master Baiter, RBB.

Carrick

Yes things are complex, but when one uses words like “winning” and “losing”, I have to remind them this isn’t a basketball game with a simple scorecard.

True that...please continue to issue those reminders. I appreciate your comments as always.

"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*

I can’t help but notice that you lefties are positively allergic to any mention of the good guys winning in Iraq.  Very revealing.  It’s like showing a cross to a vampire.

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

And yet you’re not allergic to the concept of the terrorists winning…

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”