The Science of Fox News: Why Its Viewers are the Most Misinformed..

[Man_of_Mind]

From Alternet:

By Chris Mooney, AlterNet
Posted on April 8, 2012, Printed on April 9, 2012
© 2012 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

http://www.alternet.org/media/154875/the_science_of_fox_news%3A_why_its_viewers_are_the_most_misinformed/

In June of last year, Jon Stewart went on air with Fox News’ Chris
Wallace and started a major media controversy over the channel’s
misinforming of its viewers. “Who are the most consistently misinformed
media viewers?” Stewart asked Wallace. “The most consistently
misinformed? Fox, Fox viewers, consistently, every poll.”

Stewart’s statement was factually accurate, as we’ll see. The next day,
however, the fact-checking site PolitiFact weighed in and rated it
“false.” In claiming to check Stewart’s “facts,” PolitiFact ironically
committed a serious error—and later, doubly ironically, failed to
correct it. How’s that for the power of fact checking?

There probably is a small group of media consumers out there somewhere
in the world who are more misinformed, overall, than Fox News viewers.
But if you only consider mainstream U.S. television news outlets with
major audiences (e.g., numbering in the millions), it really is true
that Fox viewers are the most misled based on all the available
evidence—especially in areas of political controversy. This will come as
little surprise to liberals, perhaps, but the evidence for it—evidence
in Stewart’s favor—is pretty overwhelming.

My goal here is to explore the underlying causes for this “Fox News
effect”—explaining how this station has brought about a hurricane-like
intensification of factual error, misinformation and unsupportable but
ideologically charged beliefs on the conservative side of the aisle.
First, though, let’s begin by surveying the evidence about how
misinformed Fox viewers actually are.

Based upon my research, I have located seven separate studies that
support Stewart’s claim about Fox, and none that undermine it. Six of
these studies were available at the time that PolitFact took on Stewart;
one of them is newer.

The studies all take a similar form: These are public opinion surveys
that ask citizens about their beliefs on factual but contested issues,
and also about their media habits. Inevitably, some significant
percentage of citizens are found to be misinformed about the facts, and
in a politicized way—but not only that. The surveys also find that those
who watch Fox are more likely to be misinformed, their views of reality
skewed in a right-wing direction. In some cases, the studies even show
that watching more Fox makes the misinformation problem worse.

So with that, here are the studies.

Iraq War

In 2003, a survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes
(PIPA) at the University of Maryland found widespread public
misperceptions about the Iraq war. For instance, many Americans believed
the U.S. had evidence that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had been collaborating
in some way with Al Qaeda, or was involved in the 9-11 attacks; many
also believed that the much touted “weapons of mass destruction” had
been found in the country after the U.S. invasion, when they hadn’t. But
not everyone was equally misinformed: “The extent of Americans’
misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news,”
PIPA reported. “Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are
more likely than average to have misperceptions.” For instance, 80
percent of Fox viewers held at least one of three Iraq-related
misperceptions, more than a variety of other types of news consumers,
and especially NPR and PBS users. Most strikingly, Fox watchers who paid
more attention to the channel were more likely to be misled.

Global Warming

At least two studies have documented that Fox News viewers are more
misinformed about this subject.

In a late 2010 survey, Stanford University political scientist Jon
Krosnick and visiting scholar Bo MacInnis found that “more exposure to
Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream
scientists’ claims about global warming, with less trust in scientists,
and with more belief that ameliorating global warming would hurt the
U.S. economy.” Frequent Fox viewers were less likely to say the Earth’s
temperature has been rising and less likely to attribute this
temperature increase to human activities. In fact, there was a 25
percentage point gap between the most frequent Fox News watchers (60%)
and those who watch no Fox News (85%) in whether they think global
warming is “caused mostly by things people do or about equally by things
people do and natural causes.”

In a much more comprehensive study released in late 2011 (too late for
Stewart or for PolitiFact), American University communications scholar
Lauren Feldman and her colleagues reported on their analysis of a 2008
national survey, which found that “Fox News viewing manifests a
significant, negative association with global warming acceptance.”
Viewers of the station were less likely to agree that “most scientists
think global warming is happening” and less likely to think global
warming is mostly caused by human activities, among other measures.

Health Care

In 2009, an NBC survey found “rampant misinformation” about the
healthcare reform bill before Congress — derided on the right as
“Obamacare.” It also found that Fox News viewers were much more likely
to believe this misinformation than average members of the general
public. “72% of self-identified Fox News viewers believe the healthcare
plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will
lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer
dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the
government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the
elderly,” the survey found.

By contrast, among CNN and MSNBC viewers, only 41 percent believed the
illegal immigrant falsehood, 39 percent believed in the threat of a
“government takeover” of healthcare (40 percentage points less), 40
percent believed the falsehood about abortion, and 30 percent believed
the falsehood about “death panels” (a 45 percent difference!).

In early 2011, the Kaiser Family Foundation released another survey on
public misperceptions about healthcare reform. The poll asked 10
questions about the newly passed healthcare law and compared the “high
scorers”—those that answered 7 or more correct—based on their media
habits. The result was that “higher shares of those who report CNN (35
percent) or MSNBC (39 percent) as their primary news source [got] 7 or
more right, compared to those that report mainly watching Fox News (25
percent).”

"Ground Zero Mosque”

In late 2010, two scholars at the Ohio State University studied public
misperceptions about the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”—and in
particular, the prevalence of a series of rumors depicting those seeking
to build this Islamic community center and mosque as terrorist
sympathizers, anti-American, and so on. All of these rumors had, of
course, been dutifully debunked by fact-checking organizations. The
result? “People who use Fox News believe more of the rumors we asked
about and they believe them more strongly than those who do not.”

The 2010 Election

In late 2010, the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) once
again singled out Fox in a survey about misinformation during the 2010
election. Out of 11 false claims studied in the survey, PIPA found that
“almost daily” Fox News viewers were “significantly more likely than
those who never watched it” to believe 9 of them, including the
misperceptions that “most scientists do not agree that climate change is
occurring” (they do), that “it is not clear that President Obama was
born in the United States” (he was), that “most economists estimate the
stimulus caused job losses” (it either saved or created several
million), that “most economists have estimated the healthcare law will
worsen the deficit” (they have not), and so on.

It is important to note that in this study—by far the most critiqued of
the bunch—the examples of misinformation studied were all closely
related to prominent issues in the 2010 midterm election, and indeed,
were selected precisely because they involved issues that voters said
were of greatest importance to them, like healthcare and the economy.
That was the main criterion for inclusion, explains PIPA senior research
scholar Clay Ramsay. “People said, here’s how I would rank that as an
influence on my vote,” says Ramsay, “so everything tested is at least a
5 on a zero-to-10 scale.”

Politifact Swings and Misses

In attempting to fact-check Jon Stewart on the subject of Fox News and
misinformation, PolitiFact simply appeared out of its depth. The author
of the article in question, Louis Jacobson, only cited two of the
studies above--“Iraq War” and “2010 Election”—though six out of seven
were available at the time he was writing. And then he suggested that
the “2010 Election” study should “carry less weight” due to various
methodological objections.

Meanwhile, Jacobson dug up three separate studies that we can dismiss as
irrelevant. That’s because these studies did not concern misinformation,
but rather, how informed news viewers are about basic political facts
like the following: “who the vice president is, who the president of
Russia is, whether the Chief Justice is conservative, which party
controls the U.S. House of Representatives and whether the U.S. has a
trade deficit.”

A long list of public opinion studies have shown that too few Americans
know the answers to such basic questions. That’s lamentable, but also
off point at the moment. These are not politically contested issues, nor
are they skewed by an active misinformation campaign. As a result, on
such issues many Americans may be ill-informed but liberals and
conservatives are nevertheless able to agree.

Jon Stewart was clearly talking about political misinformation. He used
the word “misinformed.” And for good reason: Misinformation is by far
the bigger torpedo to our national conversation, and to any hope of a
functional politics. “It’s one thing to be not informed,” explains David
Barker, a political scientist at the University of Pittsburgh who has
studied conservative talk-radio listeners and Fox viewers. “It’s another
thing to be misinformed, where you’re confident in your incorrectness.
That’s the thing that’s really more problematic, democratically
speaking—because if you’re confidently wrong, you’re influencing people.”

Thus PolitiFact’s approach was itself deeply uninformed, and underscores
just how poorly our mainstream political discourse deals with the
problem of systematic right wing misinformation.

Fox and the Republican Brain

The evidence is clear, then—the Politifact-Stewart flap notwithstanding,
Fox viewers are the most misinformed. But then comes the truly
interesting and important question: Why is that the case?

To answer it, we’ll first need to travel back to the 1950s, and the
pioneering work of the Stanford psychologist and cult infiltrator, Leon
Festinger.

In his 1957 book A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Festinger built on
his famous study of a doomsday cult called the Seekers, and other
research, to lay out many ramifications of his core idea about why human
beings contort the evidence to fit their beliefs, rather than conforming
those beliefs to the evidence. That included a prediction about how
those who are highly committed to a belief or view should go about
seeking information that touches on that powerful conviction.

Festinger suggested that once we’ve settled on a core belief, this ought
to shape how we gather information. More specifically, we are likely to
try to avoid encountering claims and information that challenge that
belief, because these will create cognitive dissonance. Instead, we
should go looking for information that affirms the belief. The technical
(and less than ideal) term for this phenomenon is “selective exposure”:
what it means is that we selectively choose to be exposed to information
that is congenial to our beliefs, and to avoid “inconvenient truths”
that are uncongenial to them.

If Festinger’s ideas about “selective exposure” are correct, then the
problem with Fox News may not solely be that it is actively causing its
viewers to be misinformed. It’s very possible that Fox could be
imparting misinformation even as politically conservative viewers are
also seeking the station out—highly open to it and already convinced
about many falsehoods that dovetail with their beliefs. Thus, they would
come into the encounter with Fox not only misinformed and predisposed to
become more so, but inclined to be very confident about their incorrect
beliefs and to impart them to others. In this account, political
misinformation on the right would be driven by a kind of feedback loop,
with both Fox and its viewers making the problem worse.

Psychologists and political scientists have extensively studied
selective exposure, and within the research literature, the findings are
often described as mixed. But that’s not quite right. In truth, some
early studies seeking to confirm Festinger’s speculation had problems
with their designs and often failed—and as a result, explains University
of Alabama psychologist William Hart, the field of selective exposure
research “stagnated” for several decades. But it has since undergone a
dramatic revival—driven, not surprisingly, by the modern explosion of
media choices and growing political polarization in the U.S. And thanks
to a new wave of better-designed and more rigorous studies, the concept
has become well established.

“Selective exposure is the clearest way to look at how people create
their own realities, based upon their views of the world,” says Hart.
“Everybody knows this happens.”

Indeed, by 2009, Hart and a team of researchers were able to perform a
meta-analysis—a statistically rigorous overview of published studies on
selective exposure—that pooled together 67 relevant studies,
encompassing almost 8,000 individuals. As a result, he found that people
overall were nearly twice as likely to consume ideologically congenial
information as to consume ideologically inconvenient information—and in
certain circumstances, they were even more likely than that.

When are people most likely to seek out self-affirming information? Hart
found that they’re most vulnerable to selective exposure if they have
defensive goals—for instance, being highly committed to a preexisting
view, and especially a view that is tied to a person’s core values.
Another defensive motivation identified in Hart’s study was
closed-mindedness, which makes a great deal of sense. It is probably
part of the definition of being closed-minded, or dogmatic, that you
prefer to consume information that agrees with what you already believe.

So who’s closed-minded? Multiple studies have shown that political
conservatives—e.g., Fox viewers--tend to have a higher need for closure.
Indeed, this includes a group called right-wing authoritarians, who are
increasingly prevalent in the Republican Party. This suggests they
should also be more likely to select themselves into belief-affirming
information streams, like Fox News or right-wing talk radio or the
Drudge Report. Indeed, a number of research results support this idea.

In a study of selective exposure during the 2000 election, for instance,
Stanford University’s Shanto Iyengar and his colleagues mailed a
multimedia informational CD about the two candidates—Bush and Gore—to
600 registered voters and then tracked its use by a sample of 220 of
them. As a result, they found that Bush partisans chose to consume more
information about Bush than about Gore—but Democrats and liberals didn’t
show the same bias toward their own candidate.

Selective exposure has also been directly tested several times in
authoritarians. In one case, researchers at Stony Brook University
primed more and less authoritarian subjects with thoughts of their own
mortality. Afterwards, the authoritarians showed a much stronger
preference than non-authoritarians for reading an article that supported
their existing view on the death penalty, rather than an article
presenting the opposing view or a “balanced” take on the issue. As the
authors concluded: “highly authoritarian individuals, when threatened,
attempt to reduce anxiety by selectively exposing themselves to
attitude-validating information, which leads to ‘stronger’ opinions that
are more resistant to attitude change.”

The psychologist Robert Altemeyer of the University of Manitoba has also
documented an above average amount of selective exposure in right wing
authoritarians. In one case, he gave students a fake self-esteem test,
in which they randomly received either above average or below average
scores. Then, everyone—the receivers of both low and high scores—was
given the opportunity to say whether he or she would like to read a
summary of why the test was valid. The result was striking: Students who
scored low on authoritarianism wanted to learn about the validity of the
test regardless of how they did on it. There was virtually no difference
between high and low scorers. But among the authoritarian students,
there was a big gap: 73 percent of those who got high self-esteem scores
wanted to read about the test’s validity, while only 47 percent of those
who got low self-esteem scores did.

Authoritarians, Altemeyer concludes, “maintain their beliefs against
challenges by limiting their experiences, and surrounding themselves
with sources of information that will tell them they are right.”

The evidence on selective exposure, as well as the clear links between
closed-mindedness and authoritarianism, gives good grounds for believing
that this phenomenon should be more common and more powerful on the
political right. Lest we leap to the conclusion that Fox News is
actively misinforming its viewers most of the time—rather than enabling
them through its very existence—that’s something to bear in mind.

Disinformation Passing as “News”

None of which is to suggest that Fox isn’t also guilty of actively
misinforming viewers. It certainly is.

The litany of misleading Fox segments and snippets is quite
extensive—especially on global warming, where it seems that every winter
snowstorm is an excuse for more doubt-mongering. No less than Fox’s
Washington managing editor Bill Sammon was found to have written, in a
2009 internal staff email exposed by MediaMatters, that the network’s
journalists should:

. . . refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled)
in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories
are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not
our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as
this debate intensifies.

And global warming is hardly the only issue where Fox actively
misinforms its viewers. The polling data here, from the Project on
International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) are very telling.

PIPA’s study of misinformation in the 2010 election didn’t just show
that Fox News viewers were more misinformed than viewers of other
channels. It also showed that watching more Fox made believing in nine
separate political misperceptions more likely. And that was a unique
effect, unlike any observed with the other news channels that were
studied. “With all of the other media outlets, the more exposed you
were, the less likely you were to have misinformation,” explains PIPA’s
director, political psychologist Steven Kull. “While with Fox, the more
exposure you had, in most cases, the more misinformation you had. And
that is really, in a way, the most powerful factor, because it strongly
suggests they were actually getting the information from Fox.”

Indeed, this effect was even present in non-Republicans--another
indicator that Fox is probably its cause. As Kull explains, “even if
you’re a liberal Democrat, you are affected by the station.” If you
watched Fox, you were more likely to believe the nine falsehoods,
regardless of your political party affiliation.

In summary, then, the “science” of Fox News clearly shows that its
viewers are more misinformed than the viewers of other stations, and are
indeed this way for ideological reasons. But these are not necessarily
the reasons that liberals may assume. Instead, the Fox “effect” probably
occurs both because the station churns out falsehoods that conservatives
readily accept—falsehoods that may even seem convincing to some liberals
on occasion—but also because conservatives are overwhelmingly inclined
to choose to watch Fox to begin with.

At the same time, it’s important to note that they’re also disinclined
to watch anything else. Fox keeps constantly in their minds the idea
that the rest of the media are “biased” against them, and conservatives
duly respond by saying other media aren’t worth watching—it’s just a
pack of lies. According to Public Policy Polling’s annual TV News Trust
Poll (the 2011 run), 72 percent of conservatives say they trust Fox
News, but they also say they strongly distrust NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN.
Liberals and moderates, in contrast, trust all of these outlets more
than they distrust them (though they distrust Fox). This, too, suggests
conservative selective exposure.

And there is an even more telling study of “Fox-only” behavior among
conservatives, from Stanford’s Shanto Iyengar and Kyu Hahn of Yonsei
University, in Seoul, South Korea. They conducted a classic left-right
selective exposure study, giving members of different ideological groups
the chance to choose stories from a news stream that provided them with
a headline and a news source logo—Fox, CNN, NPR, and the BBC—but nothing
else. The experiment was manipulated so that the same headline and story
was randomly attributed to different news sources. The result was that
Democrats and liberals were definitely less inclined to choose Fox than
other sources, but spread their interest across the other outlets when
it came to news. But Republicans and conservatives overwhelmingly chose
Fox for hard news and even for soft news, and ignored other sources.
“The probability that a Republican would select a CNN or NPR report was
around 10%,” wrote the authors.

In other words Fox News is both deceiver and enabler simultaneously.
First, its existence creates the opportunity for conservatives to
exercise their biases, by selecting into the Fox information stream, and
also by imbibing Fox-style arguments and claims that can then fuel
biased reasoning about politics, science, and whatever else comes up.

But at the same time, it’s also likely that conservatives, tending to be
more closed-minded and more authoritarian, have a stronger emotional
need for an outlet like Fox, where they can find affirmation and escape
from the belief challenges constantly presented by the “liberal media.”
Their psychological need for something affirmative is probably stronger
than what’s encountered on the opposite side of the aisle—as is their
revulsion towards allegedly liberal (but really centrist) media outlets.

And thus we find, at the root of our political dysfunction, a classic
nurture-nature mélange. The penchant for selective exposure is rooted in
our psychology and our brains. Closed-mindedness and
authoritarianism—running stronger in some of us than in others—likely
are as well.

But nevertheless, it took the emergence of a station like Fox News
before these tendencies could be fully activated—polarizing America not
only over politics, but over reality itself.

--Comments?

[B_v_M]

On 4/9/2012 6:40 AM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
> From Alternet:

Of course, more left wing partisan hate, eh berren?

[David Hartung]

On 04/09/2012 08:40 AM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
> From Alternet:
>
> By Chris Mooney, AlterNet
> Posted on April 8, 2012, Printed on April 9, 2012
> © 2012 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
>
> http://www.alternet.org/media/154875/the_science_of_fox_news%3A_why_its_viewers_are_the_most_misinformed/

Problem number 1: Alternet is not a credible news source.

Problem number 2: Based upon his writings, Chris Mooney is nowhere close
to being an impartial journalist.

> In June of last year, Jon Stewart went on air with Fox News’ Chris
> Wallace and started a major media controversy over the channel’s
> misinforming of its viewers. “Who are the most consistently misinformed
> media viewers?” Stewart asked Wallace. “The most consistently
> misinformed? Fox, Fox viewers, consistently, every poll.”
>
> Stewart’s statement was factually accurate, as we’ll see. The next day,
> however, the fact-checking site PolitiFact weighed in and rated it
> “false.” In claiming to check Stewart’s “facts,” PolitiFact ironically
> committed a serious error—and later, doubly ironically, failed to
> correct it. How’s that for the power of fact checking?
>
> There probably is a small group of media consumers out there somewhere
> in the world who are more misinformed, overall, than Fox News viewers.
> But if you only consider mainstream U.S. television news outlets with
> major audiences (e.g., numbering in the millions), it really is true
> that Fox viewers are the most misled based on all the available
> evidence—especially in areas of political controversy. This will come as
> little surprise to liberals, perhaps, but the evidence for it—evidence
> in Stewart’s favor—is pretty overwhelming.
>
> My goal here is to explore the underlying causes for this “Fox News
> effect”—explaining how this station has brought about a hurricane-like
> intensification of factual error, misinformation and unsupportable but
> ideologically charged beliefs on the conservative side of the aisle.
> First, though, let’s begin by surveying the evidence about how
> misinformed Fox viewers actually are.

Mooney "explores" nothing. The entire article is his opinion, which he
attempts to support with data, and in my opinion, he does a poor job.

Here is the PIPA survey:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

Look on page 23 of the pdf file and check their methodology. Those
sueveryed were randomly selected. This indicates to me that there were
no controls to see to it that their sample was in any way
representative. In addition, those sampled recieved the survey by email,
and administered it to themselves. I am not a polling expert, but this
seems to me to be very shoddy methodology.

If the methodology is shoddy, then it is highly unlikely that the
results are reliable.

> Global Warming
>
> At least two studies have documented that Fox News viewers are more
> misinformed about this subject.
>
> In a late 2010 survey, Stanford University political scientist Jon
> Krosnick and visiting scholar Bo MacInnis found that “more exposure to
> Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream
> scientists’ claims about global warming, with less trust in scientists,
> and with more belief that ameliorating global warming would hurt the
> U.S. economy.” Frequent Fox viewers were less likely to say the Earth’s
> temperature has been rising and less likely to attribute this
> temperature increase to human activities. In fact, there was a 25
> percentage point gap between the most frequent Fox News watchers (60%)
> and those who watch no Fox News (85%) in whether they think global
> warming is “caused mostly by things people do or about equally by things
> people do and natural causes.”

Once again, the methodology raises questions in this layman's mind.

> In a much more comprehensive study released in late 2011 (too late for
> Stewart or for PolitiFact), American University communications scholar
> Lauren Feldman and her colleagues reported on their analysis of a 2008
> national survey, which found that “Fox News viewing manifests a
> significant, negative association with global warming acceptance.”
> Viewers of the station were less likely to agree that “most scientists
> think global warming is happening” and less likely to think global
> warming is mostly caused by human activities, among other measures.

From the abstract of the Feldman study:[...]"Evidence from a content
analysis of climate change coverage on
Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC during 2007 and 2008 demonstrates that Fox takes
a more dismissive tone toward climate change than CNN and MSNBC. Fox also
interviews a greater ratio of climate change doubters to believers. An
analysis of 2008
survey data from a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults finds
a negative
association between Fox News viewership and acceptance of global
warming, even
after controlling for numerous potential confounding factors.[...]

To my way of thinking, exposing people to the opposing view can be
nothing but good.

> Health Care
>
> In 2009, an NBC survey found “rampant misinformation” about the
> healthcare reform bill before Congress — derided on the right as
> “Obamacare.” It also found that Fox News viewers were much more likely
> to believe this misinformation than average members of the general
> public. “72% of self-identified Fox News viewers believe the healthcare
> plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will
> lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer
> dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the
> government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the
> elderly,” the survey found.
>
> By contrast, among CNN and MSNBC viewers, only 41 percent believed the
> illegal immigrant falsehood, 39 percent believed in the threat of a
> “government takeover” of healthcare (40 percentage points less), 40
> percent believed the falsehood about abortion, and 30 percent believed
> the falsehood about “death panels” (a 45 percent difference!).

NBC surveying their competitor? Enough said.

> In early 2011, the Kaiser Family Foundation released another survey on
> public misperceptions about healthcare reform. The poll asked 10
> questions about the newly passed healthcare law and compared the “high
> scorers”—those that answered 7 or more correct—based on their media
> habits. The result was that “higher shares of those who report CNN (35
> percent) or MSNBC (39 percent) as their primary news source [got] 7 or
> more right, compared to those that report mainly watching Fox News (25
> percent).”

This I am not qualified to comment on as I have limited knowledge of the
Obama-care law. All I can say is that as more information comes out, I
like it less and less.

> "Ground Zero Mosque”
>
> In late 2010, two scholars at the Ohio State University studied public
> misperceptions about the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”—and in
> particular, the prevalence of a series of rumors depicting those seeking
> to build this Islamic community center and mosque as terrorist
> sympathizers, anti-American, and so on. All of these rumors had, of
> course, been dutifully debunked by fact-checking organizations. The
> result? “People who use Fox News believe more of the rumors we asked
> about and they believe them more strongly than those who do not.”

http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/kgarrett/MediaMosqueRumors.pdf

Once again, as a layman, I see issues with the methodology in this
"survey". There was apparently no effort to confirm that the "rumors"
had actually been covered by Fox. The writers of the article do not
believe this to be significant. I disagree. To me this "Survey" appears
to have been done in such a manner as to produce a desired result.


The above took me about an hour to check out, far more time than I
should have spent. What I found causes me to be comfortable in saying
that the Mr. Mooney's book is not worth the money, and Mr. Mooney
himself is nothing more than a whacked out left wing nut job, sort of
like most leftists in this forum.

[Slackjaw]

David Hartung wrote:

> On 04/09/2012 08:40 AM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
> > From Alternet:
> >
> > By Chris Mooney, AlterNet
> > Posted on April 8, 2012, Printed on April 9, 2012
> > © 2012 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
> >
> > http://www.alternet.org/media/154875/the_science_of_fox_news%3A_why_
> > its_viewers_are_the_most_misinformed/
>
> Problem number 1: Alternet is not a credible news source.
>
> Problem number 2: Based upon his writings, Chris Mooney is nowhere
> close to being an impartial journalist.

If by "Fox viewers most mis-informed" he means "Fox viewers disagree
most with my opinions" then he's right.
> -
--
---
If ignorance is bliss, why are there so many miserable liberals?
---

[wy]

On Apr 9, 12:16 pm, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> On 04/09/2012 08:40 AM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
>
> >  From Alternet:
>
> > By Chris Mooney, AlterNet
> > Posted on April 8, 2012, Printed on April 9, 2012
> > © 2012 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
>

> >http://www.alternet.org/media/154875/the_science_of_fox_news%3A_why_i...

>
> Problem number 1: Alternet is not a credible news source.

What is?

>
> Problem number 2: Based upon his writings, Chris Mooney is nowhere close
> to being an impartial journalist.

This coming from someone who has demonstrated in being among the least
impartial right wingnuts here.

You mean like all those other guys who write opinions in articles you
post?

> Here is the PIPA survey:http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct0...

>
> Look on page 23 of the pdf file and check their methodology. Those
> sueveryed were randomly selected. This indicates to me that there were
> no controls to see to it that their sample was in any way
> representative. In addition, those sampled recieved the survey by email,
> and administered it to themselves. I am not a polling expert, but this
> seems to me to be very shoddy methodology.
>
> If the methodology is shoddy, then it is highly unlikely that the
> results are reliable.

The best surveys are the ones that select randomly chosen people and
allow them to fill them up on their own. What, you mean you'd
actually prefer to have them singled out and "coached" into answers by
those conducting the survey to arrive at responses you would favor?

>
> > Global Warming
>
> > At least two studies have documented that Fox News viewers are more
> > misinformed about this subject.
>
> > In a late 2010 survey, Stanford University political scientist Jon
> > Krosnick and visiting scholar Bo MacInnis found that “more exposure to
> > Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream
> > scientists’ claims about global warming, with less trust in scientists,
> > and with more belief that ameliorating global warming would hurt the
> > U.S. economy.” Frequent Fox viewers were less likely to say the Earth’s
> > temperature has been rising and less likely to attribute this
> > temperature increase to human activities. In fact, there was a 25
> > percentage point gap between the most frequent Fox News watchers (60%)
> > and those who watch no Fox News (85%) in whether they think global
> > warming is “caused mostly by things people do or about equally by things
> > people do and natural causes.”
>
> Once again, the methodology raises questions in this layman's mind.

Yes, yours is a lowly layman's mind, that's for sure.

>
> > In a much more comprehensive study released in late 2011 (too late for
> > Stewart or for PolitiFact), American University communications scholar
> > Lauren Feldman and her colleagues reported on their analysis of a 2008
> > national survey, which found that “Fox News viewing manifests a
> > significant, negative association with global warming acceptance.”
> > Viewers of the station were less likely to agree that “most scientists
> > think global warming is happening” and less likely to think global
> > warming is mostly caused by human activities, among other measures.
>
>  From the abstract of the Feldman study:[...]"Evidence from a content
> analysis of climate change coverage on
> Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC during 2007 and 2008 demonstrates that Fox takes
> a more dismissive tone toward climate change than CNN and MSNBC. Fox also
> interviews a greater ratio of climate change doubters to believers. An
> analysis of 2008
> survey data from a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults finds
> a negative
> association between Fox News viewership and acceptance of global
> warming, even
> after controlling for numerous potential confounding factors.[...]
>
> To my way of thinking, exposing people to the opposing view can be
> nothing but good.

Only if the other opposing view is presented at the same time to
balance things out. Otherwise, always getting one opposing view would
then become the only view if that's all you're fed.

>
> > Health Care
>
> > In 2009, an NBC survey found “rampant misinformation” about the
> > healthcare reform bill before Congress — derided on the right as
> > “Obamacare.” It also found that Fox News viewers were much more likely
> > to believe this misinformation than average members of the general
> > public. “72% of self-identified Fox News viewers believe the healthcare
> > plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will
> > lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer
> > dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the
> > government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the
> > elderly,” the survey found.
>
> > By contrast, among CNN and MSNBC viewers, only 41 percent believed the
> > illegal immigrant falsehood, 39 percent believed in the threat of a
> > “government takeover” of healthcare (40 percentage points less), 40
> > percent believed the falsehood about abortion, and 30 percent believed
> > the falsehood about “death panels” (a 45 percent difference!).
>
> NBC surveying their competitor? Enough said.

So you'd say the same thing if FOX News decided to survey their
competitors? Yeah, enough said.

>
> > In early 2011, the Kaiser Family Foundation released another survey on
> > public misperceptions about healthcare reform. The poll asked 10
> > questions about the newly passed healthcare law and compared the “high
> > scorers”—those that answered 7 or more correct—based on their media
> > habits. The result was that “higher shares of those who report CNN (35
> > percent) or MSNBC (39 percent) as their primary news source [got] 7 or
> > more right, compared to those that report mainly watching Fox News (25
> > percent).”
>
> This I am not qualified to comment on as I have limited knowledge of the
> Obama-care law. All I can say is that as more information comes out, I
> like it less and less.

What kind of an American citizen are you to ignore the very law that's
designed to facilitate and benefit you through your decrepit illnesses
and dying days? Here, tell me what you don't like about it:

http://www.healthreform.gov/newsroom/new_patients_bill_of_rights.html

>
> > "Ground Zero Mosque”
>
> > In late 2010, two scholars at the Ohio State University studied public
> > misperceptions about the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”—and in
> > particular, the prevalence of a series of rumors depicting those seeking
> > to build this Islamic community center and mosque as terrorist
> > sympathizers, anti-American, and so on. All of these rumors had, of
> > course, been dutifully debunked by fact-checking organizations. The
> > result? “People who use Fox News believe more of the rumors we asked
> > about and they believe them more strongly than those who do not.”
>
> http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/kgarrett/MediaMosqueRumors.pdf
>
> Once again, as a layman, I see issues with the methodology in this
> "survey". There was apparently no effort to confirm that the "rumors"
> had actually been covered by Fox. The writers of the article do not
> believe this to be significant. I disagree. To me this "Survey" appears
> to have been done in such a manner as to produce a desired result.

Well, you don't seem to know if FOX covered the rumors, either. And
shouldn't you, if FOX might be your principle source on TV? It'd be
hard to miss because they'd keep hammering away at you that they did
cover the rumors and they'd keep "proving" it.

>
> The above took me about an hour to check out, far more time than I
> should have spent. What I found causes me to be comfortable in saying
> that the Mr. Mooney's book is not worth the money, and Mr. Mooney
> himself is nothing more than a whacked out left wing nut job, sort of
> like most leftists in this forum.

You didn't spend an hour on it, get real.

[Sid9]

"Slackjaw" <Okla...@spacealliance.com> wrote in message
news:jlv42s$qn9$1...@dont-email.me...

He's talking about science not "opinions"

[2938 Dead]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:51:40 +0000, Slackjaw wrote:

> David Hartung wrote:
>
>> On 04/09/2012 08:40 AM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
>> > From Alternet:
>> >
>> > By Chris Mooney, AlterNet
>> > Posted on April 8, 2012, Printed on April 9, 2012 © 2012 Independent
>> > Media Institute. All rights reserved.
>> >
>> > http://www.alternet.org/media/154875/the_science_of_fox_news%3A_why_
>> > its_viewers_are_the_most_misinformed/
>>
>> Problem number 1: Alternet is not a credible news source.
>>
>> Problem number 2: Based upon his writings, Chris Mooney is nowhere
>> close to being an impartial journalist.
>
> If by "Fox viewers most mis-informed" he means "Fox viewers disagree
> most with my opinions" then he's right.
>> -

Well, most normal people don't think the fucking NAZIS are a "civil
rights group." Faux does.





--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK





--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK

[Slackjaw]

2938 Dead wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:51:40 +0000, Slackjaw wrote:
>
> > David Hartung wrote:
> >
> >> On 04/09/2012 08:40 AM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
> >> > From Alternet:
> >> >
> >> > By Chris Mooney, AlterNet
> >> > Posted on April 8, 2012, Printed on April 9, 2012 © 2012
> Independent >> > Media Institute. All rights reserved.
> >> >
> >> >
> http://www.alternet.org/media/154875/the_science_of_fox_news%3A_why_
> >> > its_viewers_are_the_most_misinformed/ >>
> >> Problem number 1: Alternet is not a credible news source.
> >>
> >> Problem number 2: Based upon his writings, Chris Mooney is nowhere
> >> close to being an impartial journalist.
> >
> > If by "Fox viewers most mis-informed" he means "Fox viewers disagree
> > most with my opinions" then he's right.
> >> -
>
> Well, most normal people don't think the fucking NAZIS are a "civil
> rights group."

You know, most normal people aren't liberal.

> Faux does.

What?!

Zepp, you seem to get kookier by the day.

[2938 Dead]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:33:24 +0000, Slackjaw wrote:

> 2938 Dead wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:51:40 +0000, Slackjaw wrote:
>>
>> > David Hartung wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 04/09/2012 08:40 AM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
>> >> > From Alternet:
>> >> >
>> >> > By Chris Mooney, AlterNet
>> >> > Posted on April 8, 2012, Printed on April 9, 2012 © 2012
>> Independent >> > Media Institute. All rights reserved.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> http://www.alternet.org/media/154875/the_science_of_fox_news%3A_why_
>> >> > its_viewers_are_the_most_misinformed/ >>
>> >> Problem number 1: Alternet is not a credible news source.
>> >>
>> >> Problem number 2: Based upon his writings, Chris Mooney is nowhere
>> >> close to being an impartial journalist.
>> >
>> > If by "Fox viewers most mis-informed" he means "Fox viewers disagree
>> > most with my opinions" then he's right.
>> >> -
>>
>> Well, most normal people don't think the fucking NAZIS are a "civil
>> rights group."
>
> You know, most normal people aren't liberal.

You, um, think only liberals would fail to consider the Nazis to be a
civil rights group?

How far right of sane ARE you, anyway?

>
>> Faux does.
>
> What?!
>
> Zepp, you seem to get kookier by the day.





--

[2938 Dead]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:33:24 +0000, Slackjaw wrote:

Oh, nearly missed that. You really shouldn't post when ignorant,
chuckles:
http://fwd4.me/0y7o

[Slackjaw]

2938 Dead wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:33:24 +0000, Slackjaw wrote:
>
> > 2938 Dead wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:51:40 +0000, Slackjaw wrote:
> >>
> >> > David Hartung wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 04/09/2012 08:40 AM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
> >> >> > From Alternet:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > By Chris Mooney, AlterNet
> >> >> > Posted on April 8, 2012, Printed on April 9, 2012 © 2012
> >> Independent >> > Media Institute. All rights reserved.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >>
> http://www.alternet.org/media/154875/the_science_of_fox_news%3A_why_
> >> >> > its_viewers_are_the_most_misinformed/ >> >> >> Problem number
> 1: Alternet is not a credible news source. >> >>
> >> >> Problem number 2: Based upon his writing
s, Chris Mooney is
> nowhere >> >> close to being an impartial journalist.
> >> >
> >> > If by "Fox viewers most mis-informed" he means "Fox viewers
> disagree >> > most with my opinions" then he's right.
> >> >> -
> >>
> >> Well, most normal people don't think the fucking NAZIS are a "civil
> >> rights group."
> >
> > You know, most normal people aren't liberal.
>
> You, um, think only liberals would fail to consider the Nazis to be a
> civil rights group?

Nope, once again you fail to comprehend what I wrote.

>
> How far right of sane ARE you, anyway?
> >
> >> Faux does.
> >
> > What?!

"First Post" was right about you.

> >
> > Zepp, you seem to get kookier by the day.



--

[Slackjaw]

...kookier and kookier...

[2938 Dead]

Well, your drivel does tend to be pretty incomprehensible...

>
>
>> How far right of sane ARE you, anyway?
>> >
>> >> Faux does.
>> >
>> > What?!
>
> "First Post" was right about you.
>
>
>> > Zepp, you seem to get kookier by the day.





--

[2938 Dead]

"Civil Rights Group"

Gosh, and here I thought you were just fascists...

[2938 Dead]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:26:58 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:

> People ! People ! .... FOX does not exist to be 'unbiased' - it exists
> as a COUNTER-bias, to offset the biases of CNN/NBC/CBS etc.. It's the
> 'right' to the others 'left'.

Much the way Goebbels existed to counter the biased reports of the rest
of the world.
>
> Oh, and truely 'UN-biased' reporting does not exist. This 'objective
> center' is mythical, a huge fuzzball. Simply picking WHAT stories are
> 'news' is the beginning of the bias process and it only compounds from
> there.

[Slackjaw]

I'll try to use smaller words in the future, so you can understand me.

> >
> >
> >> How far right of sane ARE you, anyway?
> >> >
> >> >> Faux does.
> >> >
> >> > What?!
> >
> > "First Post" was right about you.
> >
> >
> >> > Zepp, you seem to get kookier by the day.



--

[Billary]

On Apr 9, 5:27 pm, 2938 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:31:59 +0000, Slackjaw wrote:

Zeep. Does your mother know what a fucking loser you are? Or is that
why you left Canukistan, because she chased you out of her basement?

[Slackjaw]

So you're say you think FOX news reported that the f****** NAZIS are a
"civil rights group." Is that right?

>
> Gosh, and here I thought you were just fascists...

Well, you also thought that a SAM missile hit the pentagon.

[Slackjaw]

2938 Dead wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:26:58 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
> > People ! People ! .... FOX does not exist to be 'unbiased' - it
> > exists as a COUNTER-bias, to offset the biases of CNN/NBC/CBS etc..
> > It's the 'right' to the others 'left'.
>
> Much the way Goebbels existed to counter the biased reports of the
> rest of the world.

Another example of Godwin's law ...

> >
> > Oh, and truely 'UN-biased' reporting does not exist. This 'objective
> > center' is mythical, a huge fuzzball. Simply picking WHAT stories
> > are 'news' is the beginning of the bias process and it only
> > compounds from there.



--

[2938 Dead]

Translated from Alderberry Whine speak: "a SAM missile hit the pentagon"
means, "I surrender! Stop beating me up with facts!"

Poor Alderberry. The stupidity will always shine through.

Planning on joining your "Civil Rights Group"? Or are you already a
member?

[2938 Dead]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:58:24 +0000, Slackjaw wrote:

> 2938 Dead wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:26:58 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>
>> > People ! People ! .... FOX does not exist to be 'unbiased' - it
>> > exists as a COUNTER-bias, to offset the biases of CNN/NBC/CBS etc..
>> > It's the 'right' to the others 'left'.
>>
>> Much the way Goebbels existed to counter the biased reports of the rest
>> of the world.
>
> Another example of Godwin's law ...

"Civil Rights Group" -- Fauxspeak for "nazis"

>
>
>> > Oh, and truely 'UN-biased' reporting does not exist. This 'objective
>> > center' is mythical, a huge fuzzball. Simply picking WHAT stories are
>> > 'news' is the beginning of the bias process and it only compounds
>> > from there.





--

[2938 Dead]

Your surrender is accepted.

[Sid9]

"2938 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:jlvqlq$d2$2...@dont-email.me...

> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:58:24 +0000, Slackjaw wrote:
>
>> 2938 Dead wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:26:58 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>>
>>> > People ! People ! .... FOX does not exist to be 'unbiased' - it
>>> > exists as a COUNTER-bias, to offset the biases of CNN/NBC/CBS etc..
>>> > It's the 'right' to the others 'left'.
>>>
>>> Much the way Goebbels existed to counter the biased reports of the rest
>>> of the world.
>>
>> Another example of Godwin's law ...
>
> "Civil Rights Group" -- Fauxspeak for "nazis"

.
.
Just more words from the Republican/Rove/Luntz code word dictionary to cover
their racism.
The very racism they dare not say out loud.

Cowards all!

[2938 Dead]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:43:02 -0400, Sid9 wrote:

> "2938 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
> news:jlvqlq$d2$2...@dont-email.me...
>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:58:24 +0000, Slackjaw wrote:
>>
>>> 2938 Dead wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:26:58 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > People ! People ! .... FOX does not exist to be 'unbiased' - it
>>>> > exists as a COUNTER-bias, to offset the biases of CNN/NBC/CBS etc..
>>>> > It's the 'right' to the others 'left'.
>>>>
>>>> Much the way Goebbels existed to counter the biased reports of the
>>>> rest of the world.
>>>
>>> Another example of Godwin's law ...
>>
>> "Civil Rights Group" -- Fauxspeak for "nazis"
> .
> .
> Just more words from the Republican/Rove/Luntz code word dictionary to
> cover their racism.
> The very racism they dare not say out loud.
>
> Cowards all!
>
>

And of course, fascists love to adopt names of others, making a mockery
of the words. Fascists like to call themselves "conservative" even
though they are fringe radicals out to change the very nature of
America. They like to say they are libertarians, despite the fact that
they despise individual rights. It's no surprise that they would claim
to be civil rights groups too.

[Slackjaw]

Evasion noted. Are you backing off that claim now?

> >>
> >> Gosh, and here I thought you were just fascists...
> >
> > Well, you also thought that a SAM missile hit the pentagon.
>
> Translated from Alderberry Whine speak:

I'm not sure who "Alderberry Whine" is or why you brought him up, but
you did claim that a SAM missile hit the pentagon. Are you backing off
that too?

> "a SAM missile hit the
> pentagon" means, "I surrender! Stop beating me up with facts!"
>
> Poor Alderberry. The stupidity will always shine through.
>
> Planning on joining your "Civil Rights Group"? Or are you already a
> member?



--

[Slackjaw]

Sid9 wrote:

>
> "2938 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
> news:jlvqlq$d2$2...@dont-email.me...
> > On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:58:24 +0000, Slackjaw wrote:
> >
> > > 2938 Dead wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:26:58 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
> > > >
> >>>> People ! People ! .... FOX does not exist to be 'unbiased' - it
> >>>> exists as a COUNTER-bias, to offset the biases of CNN/NBC/CBS
> etc.. >>>> It's the 'right' to the others 'left'.
> > > >
> > > > Much the way Goebbels existed to counter the biased reports of
> > > > the rest of the world.
> > >
> > > Another example of Godwin's law ...
> >
> > "Civil Rights Group" -- Fauxspeak for "nazis"
> .
> .
> Just more words from the Republican/Rove/Luntz code word dictionary
> to cover their racism.

There's a Republican code word dictionary? I certainly would like to
see it - where can I get a copy?

> The very racism they dare not say out loud.
>
> Cowards all!
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
> >>>> Oh, and truely 'UN-biased' reporting does not exist. This
> 'objective >>>> center' is mythical, a huge fuzzball. Simply picking
> WHAT stories are >>>> 'news' is the beginning of the bias process and
> it only compounds >>>> from there.
> >
> >
> >
> >

[Slackjaw]

You do realize that Fascism is left-wing, don't you? Eh, probably not.

[Sid9]

"Slackjaw" <Okla...@spacealliance.com> wrote in message

news:jm07lu$39a$1...@dont-email.me...

.
.
.
! Straight out of the Republican/Rove/Luntz code word dictionary!

[Slackjaw]

Sid9 wrote:

>
> "2938 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
> news:jlvqlq$d2$2...@dont-email.me...
> > On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:58:24 +0000, Slackjaw wrote:
> >
> > > 2938 Dead wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:26:58 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
> > > >
> >>>> People ! People ! .... FOX does not exist to be 'unbiased' - it
> >>>> exists as a COUNTER-bias, to offset the biases of CNN/NBC/CBS
> etc.. >>>> It's the 'right' to the others 'left'.
> > > >
> > > > Much the way Goebbels existed to counter the biased reports of
> > > > the rest of the world.
> > >
> > > Another example of Godwin's law ...
> >
> > "Civil Rights Group" -- Fauxspeak for "nazis"
> .
> .
> Just more words from the Republican/Rove/Luntz code word dictionary
> to cover their racism. The very racism they dare not say out loud.
>

Speaking of racism, let's see what your heroes in the liberal hate
group, the New Black Panthers are saying. Here's a transcript from a
recent meeting:

Williams: I just want to say to all the listeners on this phone call,
that if you are having any doubt about getting suited, booted, and
armed up for this race war that we’re in that has never ended, let me
tell you somethin…the thing that’s about to happen these *honkies*,
these *crackers*, these pigs, these people, these motherf*er…it has
been long overdue.”

Kweli: “Ya, what she said was right– we got to suit up and boot
up…and get prepared for the war that we’re in…this stuff got to
boil over, and all your great’s talked about that happened to be
bloodshed involved with revolution- true revolution means some
bloodshed, so there‘s blood being spilled because there’s a new
life that is beyond this bloodshed. There is a new reality that is
built upon your original African principles and spiritualities and
values and norms that is beyond this *bloodshed*. But we gotta go do
it.

“And as the Scripture said, you gotta to cross it. We gon’ have to
cross the Red Sea….I know y’all thought it was talking about some
sea in some Middle Eastern part of the world- hell no. We’re talking
about some blood. You’re gonna have to cross some blood, and go
through some blood and some battles.

“And there are those who wish they could stand in this hour, to see
the destruction of the devil‘s world and the devil’s society- and
I‘m ain’t talking about no dude underneath the ground with a
pitchfork and pantyhose. I’m talking about that blonde haired,
blue-eyed, sometimes brown-eyed, Caucasian walkin around with a
mindset, a demonistic mindset, and a nature to do evil and brutality.”

---

It's the liberal mindset like this that makes me glad I'm on the right!

> Cowards all!
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
> >>>> Oh, and truely 'UN-biased' reporting does not exist. This
> 'objective >>>> center' is mythical, a huge fuzzball. Simply picking
> WHAT stories are >>>> 'news' is the beginning of the bias process and
> it only compounds >>>> from there.
> >
> >
> >
> >

[Sid9]

"Slackjaw" <Okla...@spacealliance.com> wrote in message

news:jm07jt$33h$1...@dont-email.me...

> Sid9 wrote:
>
>>
>> "2938 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
>> news:jlvqlq$d2$2...@dont-email.me...
>> > On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:58:24 +0000, Slackjaw wrote:
>> >
>> > > 2938 Dead wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:26:58 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>> > > >
>> >>>> People ! People ! .... FOX does not exist to be 'unbiased' - it
>> >>>> exists as a COUNTER-bias, to offset the biases of CNN/NBC/CBS
>> etc.. >>>> It's the 'right' to the others 'left'.
>> > > >
>> > > > Much the way Goebbels existed to counter the biased reports of
>> > > > the rest of the world.
>> > >
>> > > Another example of Godwin's law ...
>> >
>> > "Civil Rights Group" -- Fauxspeak for "nazis"
>> .
>> .
>> Just more words from the Republican/Rove/Luntz code word dictionary
>> to cover their racism.
>
> There's a Republican code word dictionary? I certainly would like to
> see it - where can I get a copy?
>
>
>> The very racism they dare not say out loud.
>>
>> Cowards all!

Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

[Slackjaw]

While I couldn't find a rightard dictionary - I did find this Liberal
Code Word translator on the 'net - it explains a lot!

From http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37996

----

When liberals say ‘Diversity:’ “I support diversity! I love
diversity!”

What they mean: “I’m white and I hate myself. I need to surround
myself with a diverse group of people but not because I seek to learn
different cultures or understand different perspectives. I need these
people because it assuages my white guilt. I feel non-whites are
particularly stupid so I pretend to give them advantages and pretend to
‘understand’ where they’re coming from, so that they can support
liberal politicians, who, in turn, will pretend to help them but
actually hold them back. As a liberal, I don’t think non-whites are
equal to me—I just pretend to think that.”

When liberals say ‘Invest:’ “I want to invest resources in the
lower and middle class so that they can fully accomplish the American
Dream.”

What they mean: “I want to systematically perform a redistribution of
wealth so that the rich—who I envy for their ability to work hard and
enjoy the treasures of their labor—end up paying for everyone else,
particularly those who I view as second-class citizens: the poor. I
have no faith in the American people and think the only way someone can
move up in this world is through my charity.”

When liberals say ‘Global Citizen:’ “It’s time to realize that
as global citizens, we need to better understand where other countries
are coming from.”

What they mean: “I hate America so much that I feel embarrassed to
say I’m an American citizen. I don’t value what this country has to
offer and even though I wouldn’t dare move to another country, I’ll
criticize it nevertheless. We all need to be one global community
because America has too much power. I hate that. I need a hug—a big,
global hug.”

When liberals say ‘Feminist:’ “I’m a feminist and I believe
that women are equal to men!”

What they mean: “I love it when women are liberal and I want them to
have everything that men have—and then some. But not if a woman is
conservative or holds different views from me. There is no room in
feminism for women who don’t think the way the National Organization
of Women thinks. Sarah Palin? She’s a lowly housewife and hockey mom
who got lucky and was elected to head a second-rate state. Michelle
Bachmann? She’s a nut job with crazy eyes! Ann Coulter? Well, I
better stay away from insulting her because she can debate me into
oblivion.”

When liberals say ‘Support Israel:’ “I’m a big supporter of
Israel and I will stand behind our ally forever.”

What they mean: “Jews overwhelmingly vote for Democrats and so I
should probably claim to support their homeland. However, truth be
told, while I like Jewish people, I find the Israelis to be oppressors.
What gives them the right to fight back against Hamas, a peaceful
organization just trying to survive?”

When the liberals say ‘Support African American rights:’ “Whether
through affirmative action or more community programs, we must support
the rights of African Americans.”

What they mean: “I feel bad for black people because of what my
ancestors did to their ancestors. I need to make up for it because
blacks haven’t been able to overcome the obstacles slavery caused.
I’d like to think they can make it in this country without a helping
hand, but I’m actually racist and don’t think they’re smart
enough. I truly love black people, but I don’t want one dating my
daughter.”

When liberals say ‘Heteronormative’ or ‘Heterosexist:’ “We
really need to change our heterosexist society that values
heterosexuals more than our gay and lesbian friends.”

What they mean: “My college Women Center passed out literature saying
it’s okay for a someone to dress as a woman and use a woman’s
bathroom having a male sex organ and surgically implanted breasts, and
go by the name Ezmerelda. So now I’m going to support that.”

When liberals say ‘I support our President.’

What they mean: “I support our President no matter what he says or
does because he’s black.”

When liberals say ‘Environmentalism:’ “I live an eco-friendly
lifestyle because I believe in the tenets of environmentalism. We
don’t have to savage the Earth to live a comfortable lifestyle.”

What they mean: “Despite shoddy science, I am clinging to a belief in
global warming. If I admitted that the science isn’t there yet and
that there have been significant errors in developing climate theory,
I’d look like a real idiot. So at this point, I will insist that we
completely change our nation—impacting everything from the economy to
how we get to work every day—to save face. Ideally, we’ll have a
huge heat blast that will kill millions of people. That will make me
happy because then I can say, ‘I told ya so!’ Oh, and I’m sorry
but I’m sticking with two-ply toilet tissue, environment be damned.”

When liberals say ‘Immigration Reform:’ “I support a
comprehensive and fair immigration-reform policy.”

What they mean: “I don’t care that illegal immigrants break the law
because if they become citizens, they’ll vote to keep liberals like
me in power. I don’t care that some businesses abuse their
illegal-immigrant workforce with harsh conditions and low wages. I’ll
pretend that I support comprehensive reform when all I want is amnesty
and more votes for liberals.”

[2938 Dead]

That Faux News referred to the National Socialists as a "civil rights
group"? The proof was right there in the link.

>
>
>> >> Gosh, and here I thought you were just fascists...
>> >
>> > Well, you also thought that a SAM missile hit the pentagon.
>>
>> Translated from Alderberry Whine speak:
>
> I'm not sure who "Alderberry Whine" is or why you brought him up, but
> you did claim that a SAM missile hit the pentagon. Are you backing off
> that too?
>

Translated from Alderberry Whine speak: I surrender.

You sure lose gracelessly. You would think you would be better at it by
now.

>
>> "a SAM missile hit the
>> pentagon" means, "I surrender! Stop beating me up with facts!"
>>
>> Poor Alderberry. The stupidity will always shine through.
>>
>> Planning on joining your "Civil Rights Group"? Or are you already a
>> member?





--

[2938 Dead]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:58:06 +0000, Slackjaw wrote:

> Sid9 wrote:
>
>
>> "2938 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
>> news:jlvqlq$d2$2...@dont-email.me...
>> > On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:58:24 +0000, Slackjaw wrote:
>> >
>> > > 2938 Dead wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:26:58 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>> > > >
>> >>>> People ! People ! .... FOX does not exist to be 'unbiased' - it
>> >>>> exists as a COUNTER-bias, to offset the biases of CNN/NBC/CBS
>> etc.. >>>> It's the 'right' to the others 'left'.
>> > > >
>> > > > Much the way Goebbels existed to counter the biased reports of
>> > > > the rest of the world.
>> > >
>> > > Another example of Godwin's law ...
>> >
>> > "Civil Rights Group" -- Fauxspeak for "nazis"
>> .
>> .
>> Just more words from the Republican/Rove/Luntz code word dictionary to
>> cover their racism.
>
> There's a Republican code word dictionary? I certainly would like to see
> it - where can I get a copy?

Ask Karl Rove, but he would probably consider you a useful idiot, not to
be trusted with sensitive information.

>
>
>> The very racism they dare not say out loud.
>>
>> Cowards all!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>>> Oh, and truely 'UN-biased' reporting does not exist. This
>> 'objective >>>> center' is mythical, a huge fuzzball. Simply picking
>> WHAT stories are >>>> 'news' is the beginning of the bias process and
>> it only compounds >>>> from there.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >





--

[2938 Dead]

I don't, but that's probably because I've studied history and political
science.

You're just another moron who thinks Rush Limbaugh knows what the hell
he's talking about.

[Man_of_Mind]

On 4/9/2012 11:16 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 04/09/2012 08:40 AM, Man_of_Mind was quoting from:

>>
>> From Alternet:
>>
>> By Chris Mooney, AlterNet
>> Posted on April 8, 2012, Printed on April 9, 2012
>> © 2012 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
>>
>> http://www.alternet.org/media/154875/the_science_of_fox_news%3A_why_its_viewers_are_the_most_misinformed/
>
> Problem number 1: Alternet is not a credible news source.

Prove it.. I can prove much more easily that WND isn't credible..

>> In June of last year, Jon Stewart went on air with Fox News’ Chris
>> Wallace and started a major media controversy over the channel’s
>> misinforming of its viewers. “Who are the most consistently misinformed
>> media viewers?” Stewart asked Wallace. “The most consistently
>> misinformed? Fox, Fox viewers, consistently, every poll.”
>>
>> Stewart’s statement was factually accurate, as we’ll see. The next day,
>> however, the fact-checking site PolitiFact weighed in and rated it
>> “false.” In claiming to check Stewart’s “facts,” PolitiFact ironically
>> committed a serious error—and later, doubly ironically, failed to
>> correct it. How’s that for the power of fact checking?
>>
>> There probably is a small group of media consumers out there somewhere
>> in the world who are more misinformed, overall, than Fox News viewers.
>> But if you only consider mainstream U.S. television news outlets with
>> major audiences (e.g., numbering in the millions), it really is true
>> that Fox viewers are the most misled based on all the available
>> evidence—especially in areas of political controversy. This will come as
>> little surprise to liberals, perhaps, but the evidence for it—evidence
>> in Stewart’s favor—is pretty overwhelming.
>>
>> My goal here is to explore the underlying causes for this “Fox News
>> effect”—explaining how this station has brought about a hurricane-like
>> intensification of factual error, misinformation and unsupportable but
>> ideologically charged beliefs on the conservative side of the aisle.
>> First, though, let’s begin by surveying the evidence about how
>> misinformed Fox viewers actually are.
>
> Mooney "explores" nothing. The entire article is his opinion

You presume to know his opinions and how to write an objective
article? Prove it, and write something objective about it..

>> Based upon my research, I have located seven separate studies that
>> support Stewart’s claim about Fox, and none that undermine it. Six of
>> these studies were available at the time that PolitFact took on Stewart;
>> one of them is newer.
>>
>> The studies all take a similar form: These are public opinion surveys
>> that ask citizens about their beliefs on factual but contested issues,
>> and also about their media habits. Inevitably, some significant
>> percentage of citizens are found to be misinformed about the facts, and
>> in a politicized way—but not only that. The surveys also find that those
>> who watch Fox are more likely to be misinformed, their views of reality
>> skewed in a right-wing direction. In some cases, the studies even show
>> that watching more Fox makes the misinformation problem worse.
>>
>> So with that, here are the studies.
>>
>> Iraq War
>>
>> In 2003, a survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes
>> (PIPA) at the University of Maryland found widespread public
>> misperceptions about the Iraq war. For instance, many Americans believed
>> the U.S. had evidence that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had been collaborating
>> in some way with Al Qaeda, or was involved in the 9-11 attacks; many
>> also believed that the much touted “weapons of mass destruction” had
>> been found in the country after the U.S. invasion, when they hadn’t. But
>> not everyone was equally misinformed: “The extent of Americans’
>> misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news,”
>> PIPA reported. “Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are
>> more likely than average to have misperceptions.” For instance, 80
>> percent of Fox viewers held at least one of three Iraq-related
>> misperceptions, more than a variety of other types of news consumers,
>> and especially NPR and PBS users. Most strikingly, Fox watchers who paid
>> more attention to the channel were more likely to be misled.
>
> Here is the PIPA survey:

Indeed, there it is, however..

> http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf
>
> Look on page 23 of the pdf file and check their methodology

Better yet, go here and read a more thorough description of the
methodologies used, before you go off 'half-cocked' again..

> Those sueveryed were randomly selected.

And you don't comprehend why? That's not anyone's fault but
your own, so quit trying to play the victim because you don't
understand mathematical disciplines like statistical analysis..

>> Global Warming
>>
>> At least two studies have documented that Fox News viewers are more
>> misinformed about this subject.
>>
>> In a late 2010 survey, Stanford University political scientist Jon
>> Krosnick and visiting scholar Bo MacInnis found that “more exposure to
>> Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream
>> scientists’ claims about global warming, with less trust in scientists,
>> and with more belief that ameliorating global warming would hurt the
>> U.S. economy.” Frequent Fox viewers were less likely to say the Earth’s
>> temperature has been rising and less likely to attribute this
>> temperature increase to human activities. In fact, there was a 25
>> percentage point gap between the most frequent Fox News watchers (60%)
>> and those who watch no Fox News (85%) in whether they think global
>> warming is “caused mostly by things people do or about equally by things
>> people do and natural causes.”
>
> Once again, the methodology raises questions in this layman's mind.

But, since you have no formal training in this discipline, all
you can do is cast aspersions to create doubt where none exists..

>> In a much more comprehensive study released in late 2011 (too late for
>> Stewart or for PolitiFact), American University communications scholar
>> Lauren Feldman and her colleagues reported on their analysis of a 2008
>> national survey, which found that “Fox News viewing manifests a
>> significant, negative association with global warming acceptance.”
>> Viewers of the station were less likely to agree that “most scientists
>> think global warming is happening” and less likely to think global
>> warming is mostly caused by human activities, among other measures.
>
> From the abstract of the Feldman study:

Okay, you can argue for you won limitations of understanding,
but please try not to pretend that I have to accept your word
as the final scientific conclusion about man-made global warming..

> To my way of thinking, exposing people to the opposing view can be
> nothing but good.

Even though you're dead set against views that oppose your own?

Nice double-standard that..

>> Health Care
>>
>> In 2009, an NBC survey found “rampant misinformation” about the
>> healthcare reform bill before Congress — derided on the right as
>> “Obamacare.” It also found that Fox News viewers were much more likely
>> to believe this misinformation than average members of the general
>> public. “72% of self-identified Fox News viewers believe the healthcare
>> plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will
>> lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer
>> dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the
>> government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the
>> elderly,” the survey found.
>>
>> By contrast, among CNN and MSNBC viewers, only 41 percent believed the
>> illegal immigrant falsehood, 39 percent believed in the threat of a
>> “government takeover” of healthcare (40 percentage points less), 40
>> percent believed the falsehood about abortion, and 30 percent believed
>> the falsehood about “death panels” (a 45 percent difference!).
>>
>> In early 2011, the Kaiser Family Foundation released another survey on
>> public misperceptions about healthcare reform. The poll asked 10
>> questions about the newly passed healthcare law and compared the “high
>> scorers”—those that answered 7 or more correct—based on their media
>> habits. The result was that “higher shares of those who report CNN (35
>> percent) or MSNBC (39 percent) as their primary news source [got] 7 or
>> more right, compared to those that report mainly watching Fox News (25
>> percent).”
>
> This I am not qualified to comment on

As often as not..

>> "Ground Zero Mosque”
>>
>> In late 2010, two scholars at the Ohio State University studied public
>> misperceptions about the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”—and in
>> particular, the prevalence of a series of rumors depicting those seeking
>> to build this Islamic community center and mosque as terrorist
>> sympathizers, anti-American, and so on. All of these rumors had, of
>> course, been dutifully debunked by fact-checking organizations. The
>> result? “People who use Fox News believe more of the rumors we asked
>> about and they believe them more strongly than those who do not.”
>
> http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/kgarrett/MediaMosqueRumors.pdf
>
> Once again, as a layman, I see issues with the methodology in this
> "survey"

You see "issues" that do not exist outside of your imagination,
and do that primarily to avoid the real issues of the day. How
does that work out for you?

> The above took me about an hour to check out, far more time than I
> should have spent. What I found causes me to be comfortable in saying
> that the Mr. Mooney's book is not worth the money

I see, so without any actual expertise in a subject that you're
admittedly unfamiliar with, you feel it necessary to try and
downplay everything about the author that you can manage with
no previous experience in the matter..

--Your own 'methodology' seems more than a little 'suspect'..

[Man_of_Mind]

On 4/9/2012 11:51 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> On 04/09/2012 08:40 AM, Man_of_Mind was quoting from:
>>>
>>> From Alternet:
>>>
>>> By Chris Mooney, AlterNet
>>> Posted on April 8, 2012, Printed on April 9, 2012
>>> © 2012 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
>>>
>>> http://www.alternet.org/media/154875/the_science_of_fox_news%3A_why_its_viewers_are_the_most_misinformed/
>>
>> Problem number 1: Alternet is not a credible news source.

And what 'proof' can be offered against such a 'negative claim'?

>> Problem number 2: Based upon his writings, Chris Mooney is nowhere
>> close to being an impartial journalist.
>
> If by "Fox viewers most mis-informed" he means "Fox viewers disagree
> most with my opinions"

That would be a fallacy argument on your own behalf..

--It's called 'circular reasoning'..

[B_v_M]

On 4/9/2012 9:46 PM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
>>> Problem number 1: Alternet is not a credible news source.
>
> And what 'proof' can be offered against such a 'negative claim'?

Iow he is correct, thank you, berren...

[B_v_M]

On 4/9/2012 9:43 PM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
>> Problem number 1: Alternet is not a credible news source.
>
> Prove it..

Take it on faith.

[Man_of_Mind]

>>>>>> People ! People ! .... FOX does not exist to be 'unbiased' - it
>>>>>> exists as a COUNTER-bias, to offset the biases of CNN/NBC/CBS etc..
>>>>>> It's the 'right' to the others 'left'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Much the way Goebbels existed to counter the biased reports of
>>>>> the rest of the world.
>>>>
>>>> Another example of Godwin's law ...
>>>
>>> "Civil Rights Group" -- Fauxspeak for "nazis"
>> .

>> Just more words from the Republican/Rove/Luntz code word dictionary
>> to cover their racism. The very racism they dare not say out loud.
>
> Speaking of

Say, what happened to your little buddy, bald nerfball?

--Did he proclaim to have a PhD in physical chemistry?

[B_v_M]

On 4/9/2012 10:06 PM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
> --Did he proclaim to have a PhD in physical chemistry?

Di you say something about pseudo-psychology hours, berren?

[David Hartung]

You have?

You show an amazing amount of ignorance in both subjects.

[David Hartung]

Had any self proclaimed "conservative" responded to one of your posts in
such a manner, you would have accused him of changing the subject
because he would be too cowardly to respond to the actual post.

You may wish to consider practicing what you preach Kurt.

[Man_of_Mind]

On 4/10/2012 6:30 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 04/10/2012 12:06 AM, Man_of_Mind wrote:

...

>>>>>>>> People ! People ! .... FOX does not exist to be 'unbiased' - it
>>>>>>>> exists as a COUNTER-bias, to offset the biases of CNN/NBC/CBS etc..
>>>>>>>> It's the 'right' to the others 'left'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Much the way Goebbels existed to counter the biased reports of
>>>>>>> the rest of the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another example of Godwin's law ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Civil Rights Group" -- Fauxspeak for "nazis"
>>>> .
>>>> Just more words from the Republican/Rove/Luntz code word dictionary
>>>> to cover their racism. The very racism they dare not say out loud.
>>>
>>> Speaking of
>>
>> Say, what happened to your little buddy, bald nerfball?
>>
>> --Did he proclaim to have a PhD in physical chemistry?
>
> Had any self proclaimed "conservative" responded

You presuppose that which isn't..

--Something about your own bigotry and biases..

[Man_of_Mind]

On 4/9/2012 9:59 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> opined:

>
> You do realize that Fascism is left-wing, don't you?

You do realize that you're completely wrong, don't you?

--Eh, probably not..

[B_v_M]

On 4/10/2012 4:45 AM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
> --Something about your own bigotry and biases..

The beam, your eye, the view from here, berren..

[B_v_M]

It's alright berren, you can wear the denial glasses until Fidel or Hugo
reclaims them..

[Man_Of_Mind]

David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 04/09/2012 11:17 PM, 2938 Dead wrote:
>>

>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:59:10 +0000, Slapped_raw whined:

>>>
>>> 2938 Dead wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:43:02 -0400, Sid9 wrote:

--->

>>>> And of course, fascists love to adopt names of others, making a mockery
>>>> of the words. Fascists like to call themselves "conservative" even
>>>> though they are fringe radicals out to change the very nature of
>>>> America. They like to say they are libertarians, despite the fact that
>>>> they despise individual rights. It's no surprise that they would claim
>>>> to be civil rights groups too.
>>>
>>> You do realize that Fascism is left-wing, don't you? Eh, probably not.
>>
>> I don't, but that's probably because I've studied history and political
>> science.
>
> You have?

Yup.. Maybe you should give it a try sometime..

--At your earliest possible inconvenience..

[B_v_M]

So we can add in history and poli-sci to your behavioral sciences
modules as well?

You've been very busy indeed, berren.

I'm wondering, ow many credit hours total amongst the three would that be?

[David Hartung]

You do realize that neither you or Jamieson demonstrate the level of
knowledge for either history or political science which should be
expected from a high school student?

[Man_Of_Mind]

David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 04/10/2012 01:47 PM, Man_Of_Mind wrote:
>>
>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/09/2012 11:17 PM, 2938 Dead wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:59:10 +0000, Slapped_raw whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2938 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:43:02 -0400, Sid9 wrote:

----->

>>>>>> And of course, fascists love to adopt names of others, making a mockery
>>>>>> of the words. Fascists like to call themselves "conservative" even
>>>>>> though they are fringe radicals out to change the very nature of
>>>>>> America. They like to say they are libertarians, despite the fact that
>>>>>> they despise individual rights. It's no surprise that they would
>>>>>> claim to be civil rights groups too.
>>>>>
>>>>> You do realize that Fascism is left-wing, don't you? Eh, probably not.
>>>>
>>>> I don't, but that's probably because I've studied history and political
>>>> science.
>>>
>>> You have?
>>
>> Yup.. Maybe you should give it a try sometime..
>
> You do realize that neither you or Jamieson demonstrate the level of
> knowledge for either history or political science which should be
> expected from a high school student?

According to yourself?

And your degree in education or history would be from where? Google?

More likely, you were just mouthing off self-importantly about your
own "demonstrated level of knowledge", as I know that I've attended
the classes you dishonestly insinuated would be expected..

--But, that's the trouble with your 'expectations', isn't it?

[B_v_M]

And by observation as well.

> And your degree in education or history would be from where? Google?

Why do you dislike google, berren?

> More likely, you were just mouthing off self-importantly about your
> own "demonstrated level of knowledge", as I know that I've attended
> the classes you dishonestly insinuated would be expected..

How many credit hours, berren?

> --But, that's the trouble with your 'expectations', isn't it?

And what of yours?

[David Hartung]

Your assertion of education proves nothing.

[Billary]

On Apr 9, 7:26 pm, 2938 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:54:46 -0700, Billary wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 5:27 pm, 2938 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:31:59 +0000, Slackjaw wrote:
>
> > Zeep. Does your mother know what a fucking loser you are? Or is that why
> > you left Canukistan, because she chased you out of her basement?
>
> Your surrender is accepted.

>
> --
> “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
> inevitable” -JFK
>
> --
> “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
> inevitable” -JFK

Zepp. Does your mother know what a fucking loser you are? Or is that
why
you left Canukistan, because she chased you out of her basement?

[B_v_M]

The berren's very reticent about listing his bona fides in any detail..

[Man_Of_Mind]

David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 04/10/2012 03:20 PM, Man_Of_Mind wrote:
>>
>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/10/2012 01:47 PM, Man_Of_Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/09/2012 11:17 PM, 2938 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:59:10 +0000, Slapped_raw whined:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2938 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:43:02 -0400, Sid9 wrote:

------->

>>>>>>>> And of course, fascists love to adopt names of others, making a mockery
>>>>>>>> of the words. Fascists like to call themselves "conservative" even
>>>>>>>> though they are fringe radicals out to change the very nature of
>>>>>>>> America. They like to say they are libertarians, despite the fact that
>>>>>>>> they despise individual rights. It's no surprise that they would claim to be civil rights groups too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You do realize that Fascism is left-wing, don't you? Eh, probably not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't, but that's probably because I've studied history and political
>>>>>> science.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have?
>>>>
>>>> Yup.. Maybe you should give it a try sometime..
>>>
>>> You do realize that neither you or Jamieson demonstrate the level of
>>> knowledge for either history or political science which should be
>>> expected from a high school student?
>>
>> According to yourself?
>>
>> And your degree in education or history would be from where? Google?
>>
>> More likely, you were just mouthing off self-importantly about your
>> own "demonstrated level of knowledge", as I know that I've attended
>> the classes you dishonestly insinuated would be expected..
>>

>> --But, that's the trouble with your 'expectations', isn't it?
>

> Your assertion of education proves nothing.

And it doesn't have to, because you stated an unprovable claim
of "neither you or Jamieson demonstrate the level of knowledge
for either history or political science"..

Your evasions prove you're just jealous of our educations,
and can be taken as an indirect admission that you cannot
possibly begin to hope to refute the fact that fascism has
historically begun with tiny-minded "conservatives" like you..

--Go stick that in your 'google scholar' keyword search, David..

[B_v_M]

Well yes, to be worth the keystrokes it's carried by, it really does,
berren..

> because you stated an unprovable claim
> of "neither you or Jamieson demonstrate the level of knowledge
> for either history or political science"..

It's demonstrated, if not empirically proven to his satisfaction, and
that of many others here as well.

> Your evasions prove you're just jealous of our educations,

Your unprovable claims regarding his alleged "evasions", etc...

> and can be taken as an indirect admission that you cannot
> possibly begin to hope to refute the fact that fascism has
> historically begun with tiny-minded "conservatives" like you..

The log in your eye, the view from here, berren..

> --Go stick that in your 'google scholar' keyword search, David..

Oh let's not get all testy!

[2960 Dead]

Would I be correct in assuming that David trimmed the rest of my
response, preferring a mindless gainsay to what I actually had to say?

If so, that's pretty pathetic. He has become just another Usenet troll.

[lsrlts]

On 4/10/2012 1:38 PM, 2960 Dead wrote:
> He has become just another Usenet troll.

Misery loves company, eh Zepperhead?

[First. Post]

Actually Dave you would be very surprised as to how much they are NOT teaching
regarding poli-sci in the public school systems these days.
And History? HA! I can take you to public schools where 16 year old kids think
that the Civil War was fought in the 1960s instead of the 1860s.
Civil war, Civil Rights, what's the difference yes?

[David Hartung]

To do so in Usenet would be foolish.

[David Hartung]

If it is all that important to you, remove me from your killfile and
download the post again.

[David Hartung]

You may well have a point.

[Man_Of_Mind]

David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 04/10/2012 03:38 PM, 2960 Dead wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:24:03 -0600, Man_Of_Mind wrote:
>>>
>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 04/10/2012 03:20 PM, Man_Of_Mind wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/10/2012 01:47 PM, Man_Of_Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 04/09/2012 11:17 PM, 2938 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:59:10 +0000, Slapped_raw whined:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2938 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:43:02 -0400, Sid9 wrote:

---------->

You really don't think this sort of thing through, do you?

--Talk about "low-effort" thinking..

[B_v_M]

Perhaps so, but if you're going to count resume it begs to be
demonstrated to some degree.

[Man_Of_Mind]

That'd be his 5:27am reply, where you wrote:

"I don't, but that's probably because I've studied history
and political science.

You're just another moron who thinks Rush Limbaugh knows
what the hell he's talking about."

> If so, that's pretty pathetic. He has become just another Usenet troll.

Nah, he's working his way up through the ranks towards being
just another shill. He aspires to become a quisling..

--With his head on a pike..

[B_v_M]

That would be what your Huffpoo proxy-thinking ism yes..

[B_v_M]

On 4/10/2012 5:10 PM, Man_Of_Mind wrote:
> He aspires to become a quisling..
>
> --With his head on a pike..

And what do you aspire to be berren, a pro-bono hacker?

[Slackjaw]

2938 Dead wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:59:10 +0000, Slackjaw wrote:
>
> > 2938 Dead wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:43:02 -0400, Sid9 wrote:
> >>

> >> > "2938 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:jlvqlq$d2$2...@dont-email.me...

> >> >> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:58:24 +0000, Slackjaw wrote:
> >> > >
> >> >>> 2938 Dead wrote:
> >> > > >

> >> >>>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:26:58 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> >>>> > People ! People ! .... FOX does not exist to be 'unbiased'
> - it >> >>>> > exists as a COUNTER-bias, to offset the biases of
> CNN/NBC/CBS >> etc.. >>>> > It's the 'right' to the others 'left'.
> >> > > > >
> >> >>>> Much the way Goebbels existed to counter the biased reports of
> >> the >>>> rest of the world.
> >> > > >
> >> >>> Another example of Godwin's law ...
> >> > >
> >> >> "Civil Rights Group" -- Fauxspeak for "nazis"
> >> > .
> >> > .
> >> > Just more words from the Republican/Rove/Luntz code word
> dictionary >> > to cover their racism.
> >> > The very racism they dare not say out loud.
> >> >
> >> > Cowards all!

> >> >
> >> >
> >> And of course, fascists love to adopt names of others, making a
> mockery >> of the words. Fascists like to call themselves
> "conservative" even >> though they are fringe radicals out to change
> the very nature of >> America. They like to say they are
> libertarians, despite the fact that >> they despise individual
> rights. It's no surprise that they would claim >> to be civil rights
> groups too.
> >
> > You do realize that Fascism is left-wing, don't you? Eh, probably
> > not.
>
> I don't, but that's probably because I've studied history and
> political science.

Really? Where did you study them?

Or do you mean in High School?

>
> You're just another moron who thinks Rush Limbaugh knows what the
> hell he's talking about.

--
---
If ignorance is bliss, why are there so many miserable liberals?
---

[Slackjaw]

Maybe he received his training in the Oklahoma Space Alliance Institute?

[Slackjaw]

Well, well, hear that David? You're jealous of Kurt's "education".

Bet you didn't even know that?

> and can be taken as an indirect admission that you cannot
> possibly begin to hope to refute the fact that fascism has
> historically begun with tiny-minded "conservatives" like you..
>
> --Go stick that in your 'google scholar' keyword search, David..

[Slackjaw]

I once hired a high school senior as an intern. Smart girl, but she
didn't know who won WWII.

[2960 Dead]

David was a victim of my latest "trim the time wasters" campaign. I'll
probably look in a month or so and see if he's become even faintly
interesting again.

[2960 Dead]

At a college. You know. It's a building with a lot of students old
enough to drink.

I see you trimmed my subsequent remarks, too. Not very brave, are you?

>
> Or do you mean in High School?
>>
>> You're just another moron who thinks Rush Limbaugh knows what the hell
>> he's talking about.





--

[Slackjaw]

Not that I doubt you Zepp, but do you mean a real, actual college? Did
you graduate?

>
> I see you trimmed my subsequent remarks, too. Not very brave, are
> you?

Oh, what did I trim?

> >
> > Or do you mean in High School?
> >>
> >> You're just another moron who thinks Rush Limbaugh knows what the
> hell >> he's talking about.



--

[2960 Dead]

And she probably bought the business out from under you in two months.

The citizenship test has questions such as "Which of the following four
individuals is currently President of the United States?" and "Which of
the following oceans is off America's west coast?" 96 questions, all
multiple choice, and a passing grade requires you get 58 of them right.
Most involve elementary-school levels of knowledge of America.

I would love to see all 535 members of Congress take the test, and see a)
how many pass and b) how it breaks down by party and political leaning.

[2960 Dead]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 02:12:20 +0000, Slackjaw wrote:

> Oh, what did I trim?

My mistake: it was a different thread. Here's what I wrote:

And like mountain climbing, it's a matter of increments, and conditions
worsen the further you go.

I still remember my poli-sci professor, 40 years ago, explaining that the
left-right spectrum in politics was meaningless if viewed as a straight
line, but is better portrayed as a circle, with moderates at the top, and
both extreme left and extreme right touching at the bottom. The only
real difference between communism and fascism is the nomenclature.

Socialism and capitalism aren't political processes, but economic
instead, and thus it's possible to have right-of-center socialist states
(Switzerland, for example, or Australia at times) and left-of center
capitalist states. Both are affected by the relative extremism of the
political process they are embedded in.

But socialism tends to be more anti-authoritarian because it's predicated
on the egalitarian idea of share-and-share-alike. Capitalism tends toward
authoritarianism because capitalists want to control their markets.

[Slackjaw]

Another classic Zeppism.

Oh, I should mention - public school education.

>
> The citizenship test has questions such as "Which of the following
> four individuals is currently President of the United States?" and
> "Which of the following oceans is off America's west coast?" 96
> questions, all multiple choice, and a passing grade requires you get
> 58 of them right. Most involve elementary-school levels of knowledge
> of America.
>
> I would love to see all 535 members of Congress take the test,

No you really wouldn't - it would depress you to see the Democrats fail
so badly.

> and
> see a) how many pass and b) how it breaks down by party and political
> leaning.



--

[Slackjaw]

Lack of response noted.

[2960 Dead]

How about you, Alderberry? Ever make it out of grade school? I did.

[David Hartung]

So I see.

[Man_of_Mind]

On 4/10/2012 9:37 PM, Slackjaw wrote:
> Slackjaw wrote:

Talking to yourself again, dim addled?

--Where's your little buddy, 'bald nerfball, PhD'?

[Man_of_Mind]

On 4/10/2012 9:36 PM, Slackjaw was sniveling pointlessly at:
>
> 2960 Dead replied to:
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:42:34 +0000, Slackjaw whined/opined:
...

>>> I once hired a high school senior as an intern. Smart girl, but she
>>> didn't know who won WWII.
>>
>> And she probably bought the business out from under you in two months.
>>

>> The citizenship test has questions such as "Which of the following
>> four individuals is currently President of the United States?" and
>> "Which of the following oceans is off America's west coast?" 96
>> questions, all multiple choice, and a passing grade requires you get
>> 58 of them right. Most involve elementary-school levels of knowledge
>> of America.
>>

>> I would love to see all 535 members of Congress take the test, and

>> see a) how many pass and b) how it breaks down by party and political
>> leaning.
>

> No you really wouldn't - it would depress you

To see how many right-wingers aren't qualified to represent us?

--You know, as in "We, the People, of the United States"..

[2960 Dead]

Oh, good. So you DID have SOME education. Some of us had been wondering
about that.

>
>
>> The citizenship test has questions such as "Which of the following four
>> individuals is currently President of the United States?" and "Which of
>> the following oceans is off America's west coast?" 96 questions, all
>> multiple choice, and a passing grade requires you get 58 of them right.
>> Most involve elementary-school levels of knowledge of America.
>>
>> I would love to see all 535 members of Congress take the test,
>
> No you really wouldn't - it would depress you to see the Democrats fail
> so badly.
>
>> and
>> see a) how many pass and b) how it breaks down by party and political
>> leaning.





--

[Baron von Mind]

On 4/10/2012 10:01 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 04/10/2012 06:35 PM, Slackjaw wrote:
>>
>> Man_Of_Mind wrote:
>>
>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 04/10/2012 03:20 PM, Man_Of_Mind wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/10/2012 01:47 PM, Man_Of_Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 04/09/2012 11:17 PM, 2938 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:59:10 +0000, Slapped_raw whined:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2938 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:43:02 -0400, Sid9 wrote:

---------->

Care to see some more, before you try to change the subject
again and drag this into yet another pointless tirade about
how somebody you don't even know somehow hasn't the political
knowledge you have from a search-engine..

--As compared to a university education?

[David Hartung]

The problem is that we have only your word that you have that university
education.

[2960 Dead]

I'm guessing Slackjaw took the quiz, but quit about a quarter the way in
when he already had ten wrong.

[B_v_M]

The log, your eye, berren...

[B_v_M]

On 4/10/2012 8:13 PM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
> --You know, as in "We, the People, of the United States"..

Oh you want to act like one now?