b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Nov 24, 2014 9:54:36 GMT -5
I see Chuck Hagel is stepping down...at least that's the propaganda currently on Fox! That and the catch!
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Nov 24, 2014 10:00:17 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 24, 2014 10:05:02 GMT -5
I'm a little confused by this, rockon. It might be I'm misunderstanding what you mean by it, but just because may loathe a thing/action why would I transfer that loathing to a person who didn't dislike that thing/action? The way I read it, it's pretty much the polar opposite of what I do/think. Or, are you just using this in reference to the choice of political parties? I was confused also. I just passed it by but now I want to give it a go. I hate eating plain vanilla ice cream. I should hate everyone who eats plain vanilla ice cream. Some people eat plain vanilla ice cream even though they hate eating it (maybe they do it at birthday parties to not offend the host) I look silly if I excuse those people and don't hate them for giving into the pressure to eat plain vanilla ice cream. Do I have it right?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 24, 2014 10:10:37 GMT -5
Wow. I knew it was lopsided, but wow.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 24, 2014 12:42:18 GMT -5
you've got nothing better to do than taunt and bait liberals, i see. how small of you.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 24, 2014 12:45:56 GMT -5
If liberals actually believe this, I would say they are more interested in media that is tainted than facts as well.
So conservatives trust the 8 conservative media sources more, and liberals trust the 28 liberal media sources more. Not sure we really needed somebody to explain that, seems pretty logical. I find it ironic that when conservatives do it it's "hostility" and "paranoid," and when liberals do it it's called "factual" and "intelligent." I guess whatever helps you sleep at night .
actually, i find this survey deeply disturbing. i haven't mentioned it yet, because i wanted to see the reactions to it, which have been pretty predictable. the conservatives have basically tried to excuse their viewing habits, and the liberals have said very little. Ratchetts: have you actually READ the study. it is damned good, imo. they took a year to do it, and collected a lot of data. this is not some cheap, quick internet poll. this is good stuff, and i am of the opinion that it is important to our nation and our politics. your dismissal of it as silly and biased is....well, silly and biased- unless you are talking about AlterNet's take on it, which i admitted in the OP is biased.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 24, 2014 12:47:49 GMT -5
Wow. I knew it was lopsided, but wow. really? you didn't know that? huh. interesting. i have mentioned it many times, Virgil.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 24, 2014 12:49:41 GMT -5
I'm a little confused by this, rockon. It might be I'm misunderstanding what you mean by it, but just because may loathe a thing/action why would I transfer that loathing to a person who didn't dislike that thing/action? The way I read it, it's pretty much the polar opposite of what I do/think. Or, are you just using this in reference to the choice of political parties? I was confused also. I just passed it by but now I want to give it a go. I hate eating plain vanilla ice cream. I should hate everyone who eats plain vanilla ice cream. Some people eat plain vanilla ice cream even though they hate eating it (maybe they do it at birthday parties to not offend the host) I look silly if I excuse those people and don't hate them for giving into the pressure to eat plain vanilla ice cream. Do I have it right? yes, you have the utter ridiculousness of the argument right. liberals don't HATE conservatives, generally speaking. we don't HATE FOX News. we do, however, HATE ignorance. we HATE the harm it does to individuals. we HATE the harm it does to the national debate. and we would LOVE to see it stop, so we could all have an intelligent conversation about what to do about our MANY national problems. but this steady stream of minsinformation is not helping. and your view that we hate you and your news channel isn't either.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 24, 2014 12:52:11 GMT -5
www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=207I watch a large range of information and have almost no doubt that the large majority of today's media is left leaning. FOX gets so much attention and draws so much criticism largely because it is really the one of the only large right leaning news outlet we have. I have never found them to be less truthful than say MSNBC but I take both in context and do my own research. This is what the study was talking about when they said that conservative news programs like FOX tend to warn their viewers that their news reporting is the only 'true' news reporting and all other sources of news should not be distrusted. imo, any news station that says this is automatically disqualified from truthful debate. a trustworthy news station would say "if you want to verify this, check it out- don't rely on us".
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 24, 2014 14:43:19 GMT -5
Why Conservatives Opt for Propaganda Over Reality ... you've got nothing better to do than taunt and bait liberals, i see. how small of you. How about this: You haven't explained how this Pew study on conservative media viewing habits points to conservatives more readily digesting propaganda. The alternet article in the OP is a joke. It presents no facts linking the Pew study to the article's conclusions aside from a brief mention of the oft-cited 2012 "Fox viewers get the issues wrong" study, which we debated here extensively in 2012. The rest of the article reads like a mirror image of a "look how smart we are; look how dumb they are" Rush Limbaugh rant, which is a style of editorializing you purport to hate. Obviously you don't hate it enough to avoiding dumping it in a new thread for all to behold. Where the article fails, maybe you'll succeed. I don't watch FOX, but suppose I did and was concerned by your supposition that FOX et al. are exceptionally propagandizing. I'm not entirely sure what "propaganda" refers to here, and the alternet article certainly isn't going to tell us, hence start us off with a description of precisely what idea(s) FOX et al. are indoctrinating Americans into that the more left-leaning outlets all the way up to John Stewart, HuffPo, and beyond are not. Having provided us with this most critical detail, you can then proceed to enlighten us as to why the Pew survey on media viewing habits supports your thesis. Does US conservatives' more tightly confined cone of media trust likely/necessarily mean conservatives are more easily swayed into embracing wrong ideas and rejecting right ones? Do all media outlets more or less engage in the same degree of propagandizing, hence the broader net cast by liberals acts as a shield against propaganda by increasing the likelihood that something will be caught that controverts the viewer's worldview and force them to amend it? Are the raw numbers on who trusts how many media outlets even relevant? If liberals on average purport to trust 28 news outlets, but obtain 90% of their news from John Stewart et al., is the 90% figure not of far greater relevance? Or suppose the messages offered by the 28 news outlets correlate by r > 0, r2 = .9 or more. If trusting any one of the 28 news outlets is just as good as trusting another, does the figure 28 have any relevance whatsoever? Consider also the converse of the above: that the messages offered by the 28 liberal-trusted news outlets correlate very little or even exhibit a negative correlation overall (i.e. are in discord). Could this not suggest that the liberal diet is a mash of both good ideas and incoherent garbage that every liberal, equipped with an indefatigable faith in his/her objective reasoning abilities, ultimately cobbles together into a personal philosophy of indeterminate quality? Is this approach not in a sense self-propagandizing? These are all valid questions. Since your article is far too busy patting itself on the back, and (to the best of my knowledge) the Pew article doesn't so much as mention propaganda, it's up to you to convince us in this thread. Maybe you'll strike a chord with somebody. Don't expect us to suddenly leap to alternet's conclusions just because of your endless plugs for the Pew study. Yeah, it's a great study. Yes, it appears to be thorough and objective. No, your conclusions certainly do not stand res ipsa loquitur on the Pew study.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 24, 2014 20:05:43 GMT -5
do you HATE jokes, Ratchetts? i don't. i think they are funny. and that is precisely what i think of cable news: it is ENTERTAINMENT. it is not news any more than doughnuts are a nourishing meal. i don't really get what is so hard to understand about that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 24, 2014 20:09:23 GMT -5
In other words, it's pretty obvious that you do hate FOX news. it is pretty obvious that you are not paying attention. i actually admire FOX. it is not anybody who can build an empire like that. KUDOS!!!!
that having been said, i don't like the product that they are selling. but that would correctly be called an indictment of the MSM, not FOX alone. i am actually pretty careful about ONLY singling them out as being the WORST of a BAD GROUP.
It's ok bro, if that's your thing then that's your thing. But don't bash them in every post you make on one thread, then repost the same article in another brand new thread, and play it off like your some champion of free speech LoL! don't exaggerate. it makes your arguments seem insubstantial. i give them precisely as much critique as they have earned. for the record, i have pointed out numerous times that CNN (which is trusted by more liberals than any other cable news network) is NEARLY as lame as FOX is. those that use CNN as their PRIMARY news source get it wrong most of the time. i think a well rounded news diet is good. rockon is probably fairly well informed, unless he is getting news from the dozen or so places that regurgitate crap from Drudge.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 24, 2014 20:10:02 GMT -5
In other words, it's pretty obvious that you do hate FOX news. It's ok bro, if that's your thing then that's your thing. But don't bash them in every post you make on one thread, then repost the same article in another brand new thread, and play it off like your some champion of free speech LoL! I disagree. Hate is a pretty damned strong word, and an equally strong emotion. I can disagree all day with what another does, but that certainly doesn't mean I hate that person.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 24, 2014 20:14:55 GMT -5
i stand behind everything i said, above, btw. it is 100% true. facts are not bashing. they are just facts.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 24, 2014 20:16:50 GMT -5
Why Conservatives Opt for Propaganda Over Reality ... you've got nothing better to do than taunt and bait liberals, i see. how small of you. i was being sarcastic. remember? winky? as to the rest of your post, you are well aware of why i am not going to take any time to reply to it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 24, 2014 20:18:49 GMT -5
actually, i find this survey deeply disturbing. i haven't mentioned it yet, because i wanted to see the reactions to it, which have been pretty predictable. the conservatives have basically tried to excuse their viewing habits, and the liberals have said very little. Ratchetts: have you actually READ the study. it is damned good, imo. they took a year to do it, and collected a lot of data. this is not some cheap, quick internet poll. this is good stuff, and i am of the opinion that it is important to our nation and our politics. your dismissal of it as silly and biased is....well, silly and biased- unless you are talking about AlterNet's take on it, which i admitted in the OP is biased. The study seemed reasonable to me. Nothing in it that we already didn't know so you'll have to forgive me if I seem underwhelmed by it. There's nothing for conservative or liberals to excuse about their viewing habits, both groups prefer to watch news that's biased politically. There's obviously a market for it.
And yes, the article was rather silly and biased as I said in my last post.
i found the survey deeply disturbing, but i am not going to waste any more time today explaining that. perhaps if i don't have so many flies to swat down tomorrow, i will.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 24, 2014 20:20:50 GMT -5
Don't expect us to suddenly leap to alternet's conclusions just because of your endless plugs for the Pew study. Yeah, it's a great study. Yes, it appears to be thorough and objective. No, your conclusions certainly do not stand res ipsa loquitur on the Pew study. you don't know what my conclusions are. i only said that i generally agree with the OP and the Study's conclusions. i never stated what my own conclusions were. edit: i don't "expect" anyone to agree with my perspective. like yours, it is way outside of the norm. however, i would be pleased if the study gets read and understood.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 24, 2014 20:29:41 GMT -5
i stand behind everything i said, above, btw. it is 100% true. facts are not bashing. they are just facts. I suspect if any of those comments were facts, you'd have some sources to back them up? Let's be honest here...it's your opinion. You've got a major hard-on for FOX news. I don't have a problem with that, because you can like or dislike any news channel you want. But this conversation was already had in another thread and you bashed them there, then you reposted it in your own thread for whatever reason, so obviously you think the conversation needs to go on. What is it that you want to say about them? Just get it off your chest man! ratchets- you have mail. edit: and yes, of course, i can back up everything i post here. you can ask any poster on this board, as well as every admin. i have never failed to back up a post on request. however, my time here is limited, so i would appreciate it if we could stick to the subject for now. i will come back to this later, if you are still interested. thanks for the interesting discussion. see you tomorrow.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 25, 2014 11:29:47 GMT -5
ok....so, as far as news sources go, there are clearly better and worse ones. you can use the survey above and coordinate it with this one: publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/what this shows is that viewers of certain media (MSNBC and FOX for example) are less informed than those that view no news at all. the ONLY way that happens is if people are misinformed IN MY OPINION. there is actually another way. and that is that Paul's infamous LIV's are drawn to FOX and MSNBC. that somehow, these two news outfits are the perfect marriage of people who know nothing and news. but that seems unlikely to me. it seems more likely that by watching these channels they BECOME uninformed. i find it interesting that these two stations attract the most political extremists. my experience is that extremists tend to be uniformed, and that this lack of information fuels their extremism because they are not getting their extremism regularly challenged by something that is more REAL. then we have the grandaddy of them all: www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.phpwhat this PIPA study shows is that those that watch cable news are less informed than those who don't on a single very prominent and important issue in 2003 (the Iraq War). it also shows that those who take in a wider pallet of news do far better, and that FOX viewers do worst of all. the reason i am critical of CNN and other cable outfits is that saying that FOX viewers do worse is really not a salient argument. CNN viewers still get a MAJORITY of major facts about the war WRONG, which indicates to me, again, that cable news is not doing a good job of INFORMING people. i actually think this is a relatively uncontroversial point. if you want to be informed, there is better stuff out there than cable news. most people who WANT to be informed know that. they get frustrated with the three headed love child news, and go looking for stimulating alternatives. what makes the latest study interesting to me is that it shows that liberals are more likely to do that. the REASONS why that is true is not that important to me. it is how it impacts the national debate, and what both ideologies bring to the table. but if you guys want to explore reasons, the two studies listed above have plenty.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 25, 2014 11:38:34 GMT -5
as to the point about how FOX is run, it is indeed uniquely autocratic. this fact is again considered at this point to be rather uncontroversial. i can see why FOX might even BOAST of that fact. good leadership should mean that management's perspective percolates through the entire organization. there are obvious problems with this in journalism- but since cable news doesn't meet the definition of journalism for me, i am not especially troubled by the fact that FOX or any other cable news organization (Turner used to run CNN the same way) reflects the views of their management. this is done in a far more subtle way in the print media as well, but that is another topic altogether.
Herb Greenwald (sic) did a documentary on FOX in 2004. it is blatantly biased, but exposes the management structure and the way news is percolated in the organization. it is actually quite interesting, and very different than other news organizations. there is a daily memo that is passed down from management that tells how they want breaking stories reported. failure to do so results in demotion. therefore, only good footsoldiers for management are retained- and FOX has a lot of them. after a while, they get so good at it, they probably don't even have to read the memos.
NOTE: Greenwald got quite a few facts wrong (ie- failure to note the fact that certain branches of the organization are not directly employed, but AFFILIATED), because he did the piece as an investigative journalist, and it is quite detailed (in other words, he mentions a lot of "facts", and as a result, he gets quite a few wrong, as well as quite a few right). he used exit interviews, since current employees of FOX are not allowed to talk about it's practices (they are under contract not to say anything so long as they are employed). and the result is that any changes that FOX makes along the way get scattered in the time stream. the only thing that remains are the more permanent features of the organization, which, as i have already stated, are quite interesting and unique.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Nov 25, 2014 13:06:27 GMT -5
I'm an old broad and I remember when it used to be a point of pride for the networks to show real news and to avoid any kind of bias.
All the cable news outlets have a bias, some more subtle than others. And possibly because the cable news programs have a lot of time to fill, they seem to stuff in a lot of fluff, or unsubstantiated claims, or editorial commenting, or simply reporters standing in a hurricane, or standing at the edge of a burning building.
Walter Cronkite would not be proud.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 25, 2014 20:46:16 GMT -5
Lol! Drudge Report? The same Drudge Report that ran with the story that dogs in Montreal have to be bilingual? That Drudge Report? They took what was essentially an Onion-y joke, and printed it as gospel.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 25, 2014 21:20:26 GMT -5
Lol! Drudge Report? The same Drudge Report that ran with the story that dogs in Montreal have to be bilingual? That Drudge Report? They took what was essentially an Onion-y joke, and printed it as gospel. My dad always said the dogs of France were very smart. They understood French.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 25, 2014 21:38:53 GMT -5
Lol! Drudge Report? The same Drudge Report that ran with the story that dogs in Montreal have to be bilingual? That Drudge Report? They took what was essentially an Onion-y joke, and printed it as gospel. Drudge is MOSTLY an aggregator. that is why i compared them to AP. when they TRY to do journalism, they generally suck at it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 25, 2014 21:43:02 GMT -5
I see Chuck Hagel is stepping down...at least that's the propaganda currently on Fox! That and the catch! that is seriously the best catch i have ever seen in all my years watching football.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 25, 2014 23:28:43 GMT -5
Instead of a poll which starts out with the assumption that "reliable" and "mainstream" are known quantities, and then seeks to pigeon-hole respondents accordingly, why don't we first poll people in order to identify a handful- no more than three or four- issues which a majority regard as "very important" and then go back and look at the reporting to determine accuracy.
My problem not just as a conservative, but as a person that cares about getting to the bottom of an issue to determine what is true, is that there is a difference between reporting from a conservative perspective, and reporting and writing in such a way that you are not merely biased, but that you are a part of a propaganda machine for your ideological agenda.
In other words, you are purely driven by ideology and you serve your "cause" even if you have to lie- as they did about the PPACA for example. I am not a fool who believes the media got it wrong because they were "duped" or "lied to", but rather they got it wrong because they were part of the conspiracy to lie and deceive voters in order to get the PPACA passed. The PPACA is built on a foundation of lies- nothing in it does what it claims to do-- that's obvious to everyone with two brain cells and a synapse-- and it was known that it wouldn't; the objective was to destroy private heathcare in America (at that the law will succeed unless it is repealed, or changed so thoroughly that it is a de facto repeal) so it can be replaced later; the object is to tax the crap out of people under the guise of taxing big rich evil insurance companies, and this was accomplished as a result of the "economic ignorance of the average voter". And ONLY conservative media warned of these facts- and they did so in excruciating detail while the "reliable" and "mainstream" outlets who surely knew they were lying at the time "fact checked" conservative criticisms into oblivion falsely claiming irrefutable truths to be lies.
There are a dozen other issues- immigration is just the latest, but you can talk about voter I.D., Trayvon Martin, Man-made global warming, Ferguson, Israel and "Palestine", Benghazi, the IRS targeting scandal, and what you find is that the mainstream media aren't merely biased, but they are so steeped in the doctrine / ideology of liberalism that they view their job not to get to the bottom of things and report them, but to propagandize-- to craft a "narrative", to spin stories.
And when I personally encounter liberals now, I start asking them basic questions-- not tricky ones designed to trip them up-- but the real simple stuff about basic issues-- and they just do not know the answers. I will grant that many conservatives I know don't know much, either. Our culture definitely suffers from a profound ignorance on a great many subjects. I take my questions from Moron Trivia-- I like to ask things like, what war did we fight in the 1940's and were we on the Allied or Axis side? Who signed the Emancipation Proclamation, and which two groups fought in the civil war? What year was the Declaration of Independence signed, and on what date? Who is the current President of the United States Senate? What is the address of the White House? How many branches of government do we have, and what are they called?
The bottom line is that if the answers don't roll off easily-- I no longer take the time to speak to them. If you don't know the basics, you aren't qualified to argue a position on an issue of great importance- so go waste someone else's time. If that's "polarization" - so be it. I no longer suffer fools lightly as I once did.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 25, 2014 23:32:07 GMT -5
did you read the study, Paul? i think it is fascinating.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 25, 2014 23:41:46 GMT -5
Liberals lack a basic knowledge of current events as well. Try these out on the next liberal you meet:
1. What is "Operation Fast & Furious"? 2. Who is Louis Lerner and what did she claim to lose? 3. Who was Chris Stevens? 4. Who is Major Hasan? 5. What is the XL Keystone Pipeline? 6. What is Solyndra? 7. Who is Vladimir Putin? 8. Who is Bowe Bergdahl? 9. What is the VA, and what recent issues have surfaced concerning the VA? 10. Who is Frank Marshall Davis, and what relationship did he have to President Obama?
But they can tell you all about WMD's (most liberals I know still think there weren't any; and do not know Hillary Clinton voted for the use of force authorization in Iraq), they know all about Trayvon Martin, and Michael Brown-- and concerning the issues liberals "know about", to paraphrase Reagan- it's not that are liberal friends are ignorant, it's that they know so much that isn't so.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 25, 2014 23:42:14 GMT -5
did you read the study, Paul? i think it is fascinating. No, because as I said- I reject the premise.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 25, 2014 23:46:13 GMT -5
Right now- without looking it up: Who is Terry Bean?
|
|