Cocooned Liberals Are Unprepared for Political Debate

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 5:46 PM GMT
    Sounds about right.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/05/24/cocooned_liberals_are_unprepared_for_political_debate_114255.html

    Thus professionals with a choice of where to make their livings head for the San Francisco Bay Area if they're liberal and for the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex (they really do call it that) if they're conservative. Over the years the Bay Area becomes more liberal and the Metroplex more conservative.

    But cocooning has an asymmetrical effect on liberals and conservatives. Even in a cocoon, conservatives cannot avoid liberal mainstream media, liberal Hollywood entertainment and, these days, the liberal Obama administration.

    They're made uncomfortably aware of the arguments of those on the other side. Which gives them an advantage in fashioning their own responses.

    Liberals can protect themselves better against assaults from outside their cocoon. They can stay out of megachurches and make sure their remote controls never click on Fox News. They can stay off the AM radio dial so they will never hear Rush Limbaugh.

    The problem is that this leaves them unprepared to make the best case for their side in public debate. They are too often not aware of holes in arguments that sound plausible when bandied between confreres entirely disposed to agree.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 5:50 PM GMT
    That's why they often respond to arguments by either criticizing the source because they are unable to respond to the points, or by using the racist label when they similarly unable to fashion a response.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 5:53 PM GMT
    icon_lol.gif

    You may want to check out the numerous studies proving that people who listen to Fox News (and by extrapolation, Limbaugh et al) are less well informed than American who watch no "news".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 5:56 PM GMT
    It's impossible to debate with a fence post, so yes, Liberals are unprepared.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 5:58 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidicon_lol.gif

    You may want to check out the numerous studies proving that people who listen to Fox News (and by extrapolation, Limbaugh et al) are less well informed than American who watch no "news".


    Ah right, by extrapolation? The issue as noted in those recent studies is ideologically driven news outlets. Viewers of MSNBC had the same issue as Fox - which I assume counts you as a viewer. icon_rolleyes.gif

    That said, I do wonder if there's a self selection issue involved. That it's quite possible that viewers are more educated than if neither of these outlets had been started.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 5:59 PM GMT
    Do not answer a fool according to his folly or he will seem wise in his own eyes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 6:00 PM GMT
    GonzoTheGreat saidDo not answer a fool according to his folly or he will seem wise in his own eyes.


    Says a fool icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 6:01 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidicon_lol.gif

    You may want to check out the numerous studies proving that people who listen to Fox News (and by extrapolation, Limbaugh et al) are less well informed than American who watch no "news".


    Ah right, by extrapolation? The issue as noted in those recent studies is ideologically driven news outlets. Viewers of MSNBC had the same issue as Fox - which I assume counts you as a viewer. icon_rolleyes.gif


    No. That's simply not true.

    "People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category."

    http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 6:03 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidicon_lol.gif

    You may want to check out the numerous studies proving that people who listen to Fox News (and by extrapolation, Limbaugh et al) are less well informed than American who watch no "news".


    Ah right, by extrapolation? The issue as noted in those recent studies is ideologically driven news outlets. Viewers of MSNBC had the same issue as Fox - which I assume counts you as a viewer. icon_rolleyes.gif


    No. That's simply not true.

    "People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category."

    http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/


    Except that it is true -
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/

    “Ideological media does a very poor job overall,” Cassino told Forbes. “They don’t challenge people’s assumptions. In traditional news, you will find that more often than not, there actually is a correct answer and there is no gray area. People who tune into ideological media are motivated to hear their side of the debate and so you can have someone who watches MSNBC be so used to hearing about protests coming from the right that they automatically believe that Occupy is mostly a Republican protest.”

    Occupy Wall Street leaders are not in support of any political party.

    On international news, Fox viewers were by far the least likely to know that the Egyptian protests led to the resignation of Hosni Mubarek, followed by MSNBC in a distant second for least informed.


    But again, I do wonder about the self selection thing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 6:13 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidicon_lol.gif

    You may want to check out the numerous studies proving that people who listen to Fox News (and by extrapolation, Limbaugh et al) are less well informed than American who watch no "news".


    Ah right, by extrapolation? The issue as noted in those recent studies is ideologically driven news outlets. Viewers of MSNBC had the same issue as Fox - which I assume counts you as a viewer. icon_rolleyes.gif


    No. That's simply not true.

    "People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category."

    http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/


    Except that it is true -
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/

    “Ideological media does a very poor job overall,” Cassino told Forbes. “They don’t challenge people’s assumptions. In traditional news, you will find that more often than not, there actually is a correct answer and there is no gray area. People who tune into ideological media are motivated to hear their side of the debate and so you can have someone who watches MSNBC be so used to hearing about protests coming from the right that they automatically believe that Occupy is mostly a Republican protest.”

    Occupy Wall Street leaders are not in support of any political party.

    On international news, Fox viewers were by far the least likely to know that the Egyptian protests led to the resignation of Hosni Mubarek, followed by MSNBC in a distant second for least informed.


    But again, I do wonder about the self selection thing.


    What part of "distant second" do you not understand?

    These are not equal outcomes. Does partisan "news" in general speak to biases? Sure.

    And corporate journalism doesn't help, because they are obsessed with "balance" rather than facts or truth.

    But Fox News viewers are extremely misinformed because it's a propaganda outlet, not a news or even opinion channel.

    That's why NPR listeners do the best because that group - with some exceptions and mishaps - overall does the best job of journalism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 6:16 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidicon_lol.gif

    You may want to check out the numerous studies proving that people who listen to Fox News (and by extrapolation, Limbaugh et al) are less well informed than American who watch no "news".


    Ah right, by extrapolation? The issue as noted in those recent studies is ideologically driven news outlets. Viewers of MSNBC had the same issue as Fox - which I assume counts you as a viewer. icon_rolleyes.gif


    No. That's simply not true.

    "People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category."

    http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/


    Except that it is true -
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/

    “Ideological media does a very poor job overall,” Cassino told Forbes. “They don’t challenge people’s assumptions. In traditional news, you will find that more often than not, there actually is a correct answer and there is no gray area. People who tune into ideological media are motivated to hear their side of the debate and so you can have someone who watches MSNBC be so used to hearing about protests coming from the right that they automatically believe that Occupy is mostly a Republican protest.”

    Occupy Wall Street leaders are not in support of any political party.

    On international news, Fox viewers were by far the least likely to know that the Egyptian protests led to the resignation of Hosni Mubarek, followed by MSNBC in a distant second for least informed.


    But again, I do wonder about the self selection thing.


    What part of "distant second" do you not understand?

    These are not equal outcomes. Does partisan "news" in general speak to biases? Sure.

    And corporate journalism doesn't help, because they are obsessed with "balance" rather than facts or truth.

    But Fox News viewers are extremely misinformed because it's a propaganda outlet, not a news or even opinion channel.

    That's why NPR listeners do the best because that group - with some exceptions and mishaps - overall does the best job of journalism.


    So says the liberal in the cocoon icon_wink.gif. MSNBC is as much if not more a propaganda outlet and Fox news only gained prominence given the distrust people have of mainstream journalism who practice bias by omission as much as by explicit direction. That reference on distant second is to international news incidentally.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 6:19 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidicon_lol.gif

    You may want to check out the numerous studies proving that people who listen to Fox News (and by extrapolation, Limbaugh et al) are less well informed than American who watch no "news".


    Ah right, by extrapolation? The issue as noted in those recent studies is ideologically driven news outlets. Viewers of MSNBC had the same issue as Fox - which I assume counts you as a viewer. icon_rolleyes.gif


    No. That's simply not true.

    "People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category."

    http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/


    Except that it is true -
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/

    “Ideological media does a very poor job overall,” Cassino told Forbes. “They don’t challenge people’s assumptions. In traditional news, you will find that more often than not, there actually is a correct answer and there is no gray area. People who tune into ideological media are motivated to hear their side of the debate and so you can have someone who watches MSNBC be so used to hearing about protests coming from the right that they automatically believe that Occupy is mostly a Republican protest.”

    Occupy Wall Street leaders are not in support of any political party.

    On international news, Fox viewers were by far the least likely to know that the Egyptian protests led to the resignation of Hosni Mubarek, followed by MSNBC in a distant second for least informed.


    But again, I do wonder about the self selection thing.


    What part of "distant second" do you not understand?

    These are not equal outcomes. Does partisan "news" in general speak to biases? Sure.

    And corporate journalism doesn't help, because they are obsessed with "balance" rather than facts or truth.

    But Fox News viewers are extremely misinformed because it's a propaganda outlet, not a news or even opinion channel.

    That's why NPR listeners do the best because that group - with some exceptions and mishaps - overall does the best job of journalism.


    So says the liberal in the cocoon icon_wink.gif. MSNBC is as much if not more a propaganda outlet and Fox news only gained prominence given the distrust people have of mainstream journalism who practice bias by omission as much as by explicit direction. That reference on distant second is to international news incidentally.


    Riddler - You can keep posting your prevarications but it doesn't make them any more true. icon_rolleyes.gif

    And I'm not in a "liberal cocoon" as I read the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Fortune, Financial Times, the NY Times, and several international papers on a regular basis. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 6:23 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    And I'm not in a "liberal cocoon" as I read the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Fortune, Financial Times, the NY Times, and several international papers on a regular basis. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Riddler lives in Canada.

    Nobody cares about his negative opinion of American liberals.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 6:24 PM GMT
    Christian - The fact that they're true is what makes them true icon_rolleyes.gif

    Here's the fundamental problem with your argument: you conflate Fox News viewers as being conservative or liberal. But while it might be roughly right, it's messy and not entirely so...

    As Pew survey notes:

    "Surveys: Republicans more open-minded, better informed than Democrats"
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/22/science-say-gop-voters-better-informed-open-minded/#ixzz1ssc0VHdF

    Yet another new survey shows that Republican supporters know more about politics and political history than Democrats.

    On eight of 13 questions about politics, Republicans outscored Democrats by an average of 18 percentage points, according to a new Pew survey titled “Partisan Differences in Knowledge.”

    The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party.

    “Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge,” said the study, which noted that Democrats outscored Republicans on five questions by an average of 4.6 percent.

    The widest partisan gap in the survey came in at 30 points when only 46 percent of Democrats — but 76 percent of Republicans —- correctly described the GOP as “the party generally more supportive of reducing the size of federal government.”

    The widest difference that favored Democrats was only 8 percent, when 59 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Democrats recognized the liberal party as “more [supportive] of reducing the defense budget.”

    The survey quizzed 1,000 people, including 239 Republicans and 334 Democrats.


    And yes, I deliberately posted this article from the DailyCaller just for you ;)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 6:50 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH said
    socalfitness saidThat's why they often respond to arguments by either criticizing the source because they are unable to respond to the points, or by using the racist label when they similarly unable to fashion a response.

    No, it's that so many conservative arguments are just so fucking delusional that there really isn't any point in trying for substantive debate.

    When you start with premises that are just flat-out not just wrong, but loony wrong, the conversation devolves into nonsense within seconds.

    Stating the arguments from others are delusional or looney wrong indicates a total inability to comprehend points of view that differ from your own. It's really that simple.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 7:32 PM GMT
    Wrong. The conservatives in DFW metroplex listen to Fox News. They live in a right wing echo chamber.

    In fact, i usually hear the right wing talking points first before the RJ conservatives post them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 7:50 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidicon_lol.gif

    You may want to check out the numerous studies proving that people who listen to Fox News (and by extrapolation, Limbaugh et al) are less well informed than American who watch no "news".


    Ah right, by extrapolation? The issue as noted in those recent studies is ideologically driven news outlets. Viewers of MSNBC had the same issue as Fox - which I assume counts you as a viewer. icon_rolleyes.gif


    No. That's simply not true.

    "People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category."

    http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/

    All the Fox News studies reflect is there are people who are less informed and less educated that watch Fox. The converse to that is not true, much to the chagrin of the liberals here who flail at countering logic from the right.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    May 25, 2012 7:52 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidicon_lol.gif

    You may want to check out the numerous studies proving that people who listen to Fox News (and by extrapolation, Limbaugh et al) are less well informed than American who watch no "news".


    Ah right, by extrapolation? The issue as noted in those recent studies is ideologically driven news outlets. Viewers of MSNBC had the same issue as Fox - which I assume counts you as a viewer. icon_rolleyes.gif


    No. That's simply not true.

    "People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category."

    http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/

    All the Fox News studies reflect is there are people who are less informed and less educated that watch Fox. The converse to that is not true, much to the chagrin of the liberals here who flail at countering logic from the right.


    Yes, yes...when conservatives speak, it's logic, when liberals speak - they are called liberal hens by your troop. Now what was that you were saying earlier about "Stating the arguments from others are delusional or looney wrong indicates a total inability to comprehend points of view that differ from your own. It's really that simple."

    Hypocrisy at its greatest. Gotta love it. So far stuck into your ingroup that you can even realize that you are the pot calling the kettle black.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 8:06 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidicon_lol.gif

    You may want to check out the numerous studies proving that people who listen to Fox News (and by extrapolation, Limbaugh et al) are less well informed than American who watch no "news".


    Ah right, by extrapolation? The issue as noted in those recent studies is ideologically driven news outlets. Viewers of MSNBC had the same issue as Fox - which I assume counts you as a viewer. icon_rolleyes.gif


    No. That's simply not true.

    "People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category."

    http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/

    All the Fox News studies reflect is there are people who are less informed and less educated that watch Fox. The converse to that is not true, much to the chagrin of the liberals here who flail at countering logic from the right.


    Wrong again. During the 2008 elections, i was listenening to CNN who was predicting Obama victory. Many of the fox news watchers asked me why i watched that because fox had it correct and was predicting mccain. They said it was like CNN was reporting on a completely different election.

    That was the first time i realized how biased fox news is and how uninformed its viewers are.

    The bias is actually pretty astounding.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 9:14 PM GMT
    nanidesukedo said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidicon_lol.gif

    You may want to check out the numerous studies proving that people who listen to Fox News (and by extrapolation, Limbaugh et al) are less well informed than American who watch no "news".


    Ah right, by extrapolation? The issue as noted in those recent studies is ideologically driven news outlets. Viewers of MSNBC had the same issue as Fox - which I assume counts you as a viewer. icon_rolleyes.gif


    No. That's simply not true.

    "People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category."

    http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/

    All the Fox News studies reflect is there are people who are less informed and less educated that watch Fox. The converse to that is not true, much to the chagrin of the liberals here who flail at countering logic from the right.


    Yes, yes...when conservatives speak, it's logic, when liberals speak - they are called liberal hens by your troop. Now what was that you were saying earlier about "Stating the arguments from others are delusional or looney wrong indicates a total inability to comprehend points of view that differ from your own. It's really that simple."

    Hypocrisy at its greatest. Gotta love it. So far stuck into your ingroup that you can even realize that you are the pot calling the kettle black.

    Save your outrage but the practices here show me to be right and you wrong. How often do conservatives refuse to refute a point because it comes from the NY Times, Wash Post, or Huff Post? We might note the bias of the site, but still refute the argument point by point. Compare that to the frequent habit of liberals who just cite the source and stop without refuting the point with nonsense phrases as "nothing from xxxxx is worth discussing" or the like?

    Or do conservatives apply labels to liberals without providing a justification? Take the example of two liberals who called me a racist because I called Obama a socialist. My argument was based on a fundamental consistency of his positions with those of the French Socialist, Hollande, who is white. There was nothing implied in any of my arguments that had anything to do with race. But because a couple of liberals/"Democratic Socialists" here were not capable of refuting the discussion points, they concluded that I was a racist for making the point. Their "justification" - They didn't think my points were valid so I had to be a racist.

    I know you don't engage in that garbage, but that is characteristic of the liberal discussion here.

    Also, is there a conservative equivalent to the mindless slogans from a small percentage of the most unintelligent liberals, "Romney likes firing people" when the context of those remarks was specific to insurance and similar service providers?

    Sorry, you might be better than others, but you're in with some very clueless people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 9:19 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    nanidesukedo said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidicon_lol.gif

    You may want to check out the numerous studies proving that people who listen to Fox News (and by extrapolation, Limbaugh et al) are less well informed than American who watch no "news".


    Ah right, by extrapolation? The issue as noted in those recent studies is ideologically driven news outlets. Viewers of MSNBC had the same issue as Fox - which I assume counts you as a viewer. icon_rolleyes.gif


    No. That's simply not true.

    "People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category."

    http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/

    All the Fox News studies reflect is there are people who are less informed and less educated that watch Fox. The converse to that is not true, much to the chagrin of the liberals here who flail at countering logic from the right.


    Yes, yes...when conservatives speak, it's logic, when liberals speak - they are called liberal hens by your troop. Now what was that you were saying earlier about "Stating the arguments from others are delusional or looney wrong indicates a total inability to comprehend points of view that differ from your own. It's really that simple."

    Hypocrisy at its greatest. Gotta love it. So far stuck into your ingroup that you can even realize that you are the pot calling the kettle black.

    Save your outrage but the practices here show me to be right and you wrong. How often do conservatives refuse to refute a point because it comes from the NY Times, Wash Post, or Huff Post? We might note the bias of the site, but still refute the argument point by point. Compare that to the frequent habit of liberals who just cite the source and stop without refuting the point with nonsense phrases as "nothing from xxxxx is worth discussing or the like"?

    Or do conservatives apply labels to liberals without providing a justification? Take the example of two liberals who called me a racist because I called Obama a socialist. My argument was based on a fundamental consistency of his positions with that of the French Socialist, Hollande, who is white. There was nothing implied in any of my arguments that had anything to do with race. But because a couple of liberals here were not capable of processing the discussion points, they concluded that I was a racist for making the point. Their "justification" - They didn't think my points were valid so I had to be a racist.

    I know you don't engage in that garbage, but that is characteristic of the liberal discussion here.

    Also, is there a conservative equivalent to the mindless slogans from a small percentage of the most unintelligent liberals, "Romney likes firing people" when the context of those remarks was specific to insurance and similar service providers?

    Sorry, you might be better than others, but you're in with some very clueless people.


    Corporations are people too??
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 9:24 PM GMT
    catfish5 said
    socalfitness said
    nanidesukedo said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidicon_lol.gif

    You may want to check out the numerous studies proving that people who listen to Fox News (and by extrapolation, Limbaugh et al) are less well informed than American who watch no "news".


    Ah right, by extrapolation? The issue as noted in those recent studies is ideologically driven news outlets. Viewers of MSNBC had the same issue as Fox - which I assume counts you as a viewer. icon_rolleyes.gif


    No. That's simply not true.

    "People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category."

    http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/

    All the Fox News studies reflect is there are people who are less informed and less educated that watch Fox. The converse to that is not true, much to the chagrin of the liberals here who flail at countering logic from the right.


    Yes, yes...when conservatives speak, it's logic, when liberals speak - they are called liberal hens by your troop. Now what was that you were saying earlier about "Stating the arguments from others are delusional or looney wrong indicates a total inability to comprehend points of view that differ from your own. It's really that simple."

    Hypocrisy at its greatest. Gotta love it. So far stuck into your ingroup that you can even realize that you are the pot calling the kettle black.

    Save your outrage but the practices here show me to be right and you wrong. How often do conservatives refuse to refute a point because it comes from the NY Times, Wash Post, or Huff Post? We might note the bias of the site, but still refute the argument point by point. Compare that to the frequent habit of liberals who just cite the source and stop without refuting the point with nonsense phrases as "nothing from xxxxx is worth discussing or the like"?

    Or do conservatives apply labels to liberals without providing a justification? Take the example of two liberals who called me a racist because I called Obama a socialist. My argument was based on a fundamental consistency of his positions with that of the French Socialist, Hollande, who is white. There was nothing implied in any of my arguments that had anything to do with race. But because a couple of liberals here were not capable of processing the discussion points, they concluded that I was a racist for making the point. Their "justification" - They didn't think my points were valid so I had to be a racist.

    I know you don't engage in that garbage, but that is characteristic of the liberal discussion here.

    Also, is there a conservative equivalent to the mindless slogans from a small percentage of the most unintelligent liberals, "Romney likes firing people" when the context of those remarks was specific to insurance and similar service providers?

    Sorry, you might be better than others, but you're in with some very clueless people.


    Corporations are people too??


    Or "If we keep talking about the economy, we are going to lose"

    Worked for Romney!!
  • vintovka

    Posts: 588

    May 25, 2012 9:41 PM GMT
    Perhaps we just realize that, "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." -Thomas Paine (an unabashed leftist, btw)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 10:46 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidicon_lol.gif

    You may want to check out the numerous studies proving that people who listen to Fox News (and by extrapolation, Limbaugh et al) are less well informed than American who watch no "news".


    Ah right, by extrapolation? The issue as noted in those recent studies is ideologically driven news outlets. Viewers of MSNBC had the same issue as Fox - which I assume counts you as a viewer. icon_rolleyes.gif


    No. That's simply not true.

    "People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category."

    http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/

    All the Fox News studies reflect is there are people who are less informed and less educated that watch Fox. The converse to that is not true, much to the chagrin of the liberals here who flail at countering logic from the right.


    That's the problem when liberals just trot out Fox - it's a straw man argument - study after study shows that it's actually conservatives who are more educated on the issues than liberals (and libertarians tend to trump them both). icon_idea.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 11:05 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidicon_lol.gif

    You may want to check out the numerous studies proving that people who listen to Fox News (and by extrapolation, Limbaugh et al) are less well informed than American who watch no "news".


    Ah right, by extrapolation? The issue as noted in those recent studies is ideologically driven news outlets. Viewers of MSNBC had the same issue as Fox - which I assume counts you as a viewer. icon_rolleyes.gif


    No. That's simply not true.

    "People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category."

    http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/

    All the Fox News studies reflect is there are people who are less informed and less educated that watch Fox. The converse to that is not true, much to the chagrin of the liberals here who flail at countering logic from the right.


    That's the problem when liberals just trot out Fox - it's a straw man argument - study after study shows that it's actually conservatives who are more educated on the issues than liberals (and libertarians tend to trump them both). icon_idea.gif


    Actually, the biggest predictor in the Pew study was education not not political ideology.

    4-11-12-Knowledge-5.png