Cheney treated like others, angry about it

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

Their method is absurd and I say that with a straight face. Is this what pass of as scientific study these days? The fact that these jokers mention anomalies (RAND and ACLU) with their list should tell you somethings.

Also, from their premise how do you account for how active an organization is? The ACLU and Amnesty International are in the business of fighting for the weak and defenseless and they don't hesitate to sue on behalf of the little guy. What about the fact that politicians like to take single topic that has the potential of furthering their own career and run with it?

But is there a better way to do a study on biases? Seems to me that they took every neccessary precaution to make sure that their study of biases stayed clear of biases.

No study is ever going to be conclusive. But some information is always better than none. Just like statistics in football. Very similar concepts. Some people will say something like "Numbers lie" and completely ignore all evidence when making cases for one player being better than another.

My stance on this issue is this, I would believe whats in this study is generally correct until a stronger study comes along that contradicts the findings in this one.