This stuff makes me really angry

[vraiblonde]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900642_pf.html

That study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did.

What negates the whole "study" is this particular passage:

Jon Krosnick, a psychologist and political scientist at Stanford University, who independently assessed the studies, said it remains to be seen how significant the correlation is between racial bias and political affiliation.




"If anyone in Washington is skeptical about these findings, they are in denial," he said. "We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks. If people say, 'This takes me aback,' they are ignoring a huge volume of research."

Let's see - 50 years ago it was 1956. You only need a nodding acquanitence with Civil Rights history to realize that this whole "study" is horseshit manufactured by some loony Stanford Leftist.

 

[Vince]

"If anyone in Washington is skeptical about these findings, they are in denial," he said. "We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks. If people say, 'This takes me aback,' they are ignoring a huge volume of research."

Hmm, must have been a real liberal moron that came up with that one.

 

[sushisamba]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900642_pf.html



What negates the whole "study" is this particular passage:



Let's see - 50 years ago it was 1956. You only need a nodding acquanitence with Civil Rights history to realize that this whole "study" is horseshit manufactured by some loony Stanford Leftist.

I disagree that racial predjudice predicts voting, but I agree that Republicans are primarily supported by a demographic, the majority of which, is not black.

 

[Steve]

Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks.

And Democrats are supported by Blacks (and Hispanics and Latinos) that have been duped by White Democrats. See, I can make an equally unfounded statement as John Krosnick.

 

[Dougstermd]

u buncha crackers

 

[Frank]

Actually, what gets me is what I always read when it comes to some study about statistics - being that, that is my job....

They never disclose their methodology.

You don't know how they drew their sample - what portion of the sample made up the "racist" portion - or how they drew their conclusions.

Case in point - 2000 election exit polls showed that in major metropolitan areas, people with the LOWEST amount of education voted almost exclusively Democratic. Also, same goes for those with criminal records.

Hasty conclusion - all Democrats are stupid crooks.

*Intelligent conclusion*? I don't know without more data - but I could deduce a few things.

One is - less than half of any demographic votes - and the poor and uneducated tend to vote the least. Older and retired persons, the most.

How much of the general population has a criminal record? How much have less than a high school education? 5%? Even less? And less than half of THEM vote?

Does it stand to reason that if you can find a portion of members of a political party that vote one way, that you can't extrapolate that to everyone who belongs to that party?

Three-eyed Nazis vote Republican - therefore, Republicans are three-eyed Nazis. This is the line of logic being used here - a small portion of the whole whose behavior is being extrapolated to represent the whole. And that is completely illogical and non-scientific.

It only makes SENSE if you're an idiot Bush-hater, because it confirms what you already believe (for you Bush-haters - I qualified that as "idiot" Bush-hater, because you'd have to be an idiot to follow the line of logic, not for hating Bush. You CAN hate Bush and not be an idiot, but if you're offended by that expression, it might be because you actually ARE an idiot, because the misrepresentation of the logic makes *SENSE* to you).

 

[Dougstermd]

Actually.



conclusion - all Democrats are stupid crooks.

 

[FromTexas]

Actually, what gets me is what I always read when it comes to some study about statistics - being that, that is my job....

They never disclose their methodology.

You don't know how they drew their sample - what portion of the sample made up the "racist" portion - or how they drew their conclusions.

Case in point - 2000 election exit polls showed that in major metropolitan areas, people with the LOWEST amount of education voted almost exclusively Democratic. Also, same goes for those with criminal records.

Hasty conclusion - all Democrats are stupid crooks.

*Intelligent conclusion*? I don't know without more data - but I could deduce a few things.

One is - less than half of any demographic votes - and the poor and uneducated tend to vote the least. Older and retired persons, the most.

How much of the general population has a criminal record? How much have less than a high school education? 5%? Even less? And less than half of THEM vote?

Does it stand to reason that if you can find a portion of members of a political party that vote one way, that you can't extrapolate that to everyone who belongs to that party?

Three-eyed Nazis vote Republican - therefore, Republicans are three-eyed Nazis. This is the line of logic being used here - a small portion of the whole whose behavior is being extrapolated to represent the whole. And that is completely illogical and non-scientific.

It only makes SENSE if you're an idiot Bush-hater, because it confirms what you already believe (for you Bush-haters - I qualified that as "idiot" Bush-hater, because you'd have to be an idiot to follow the line of logic, not for hating Bush. You CAN hate Bush and not be an idiot, but if you're offended by that expression, it might be because you actually ARE an idiot, because the misrepresentation of the logic makes *SENSE* to you).

Did you notice he can't tell you if the relationship is even significant?

 

[Frank]

Did you notice he can't tell you if the relationship is even significant?

Interesting. I not only got unsigned red karma for that - but they didn't even say what they didn't like.

I mean, geez, if I didn't like something, I'd at least suggest why. What's up with that?

 

[vraiblonde]

Did you notice he can't tell you if the relationship is even significant?

And did you notice that didn't prevent the Washington Post from publishing the story anyway?

 

[Larry Gude]

It's all true...

...blacks have no place in the Republican party.

A black has no chance at ever being important, of holding high office in the white world of Republican politics.

Blacks and even more so, black women can kiss our lily white asses before they should even bother registering as a GOP'er.

Next thing yah know, they'll be openly considering 'them' for the Whitehouse.

How about law? There will be a Democratic Klansman in the Senate before we whiteys have ANYTHING to do with a colored lawyer.

As for higher office, say an associate justice or maybe clerk? Ha. There will be a black man wearing the black robe put there by a GOP'er when hell freezes over.

National security? Forget it. No blacks allowed.

How 'bout something 'safe' where the fact that they can't swim or see at night won't get in the way, say Secretary of State?

Whites only.





See my point?

 

[vraiblonde]

See my point?

Certainly, and the whole thing is just ridiculous (the "study", not your post). However, many loose screws (like my beloved BIL) read the WashPost and consider it the Bible. They won't stop and think about the reality, they'll just start going, "Yeah! Republicans hate black people! There was a study that said so!"

I don't think you can have any rational conversation with a person that thinks CNN is a conservative network.

 

[Frank]

Certainly, and the whole thing is just ridiculous (the "study", not your post). However, many loose screws (like my beloved BIL) read the WashPost and consider it the Bible. They won't stop and think about the reality, they'll just start going, "Yeah! Republicans hate black people! There was a study that said so!"

I don't think you can have any rational conversation with a person that thinks CNN is a conservative network.

But - aren't they ALL conservative?

I mean, they're all owned by rich people like Ted Turner or George Soros, and we know rich people are all Republicans.