The Glade 4.0

Key portion of that response highlighted by yours truly.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

No, you didn't. All you've done is continue to re-iterate that assertion. Your poll certainly didn't establish it, because all you established is that FOX viewers are more likely to believve those things. You didn't show tht they were untruthful except by very careful semantic examination, you didn't show that Fox aired any of those views, nor how they aired them in a manner as to lead people to think they were necessarily true, and even if you had shown all that you didn't show that the people that held those views got them from FOX.

In fact, you got all upset about "strawman attacks" when I pointed out that you need to show a causal relationship between FOX and its viewers holding those views. You claimed you didn't say that. IT's highly disingenuous to come back now and claim that those views are given to them by FOX. It appears you are trying to disavow that claim when it's pointed out to require a leap in logic, only to sneak it back in later when claiming "proof" that is nothing more than the same assertions repeated a second time.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yeah, I know we are trying to be more civil and all that...but does that mean we have to forget the past X number of years? It's still the same people...

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I don't think you've adequately substantiated this claim, as your primary sources are Media Matters for America and DailyKOS, both of which are excessively biased and non-neutral with regard to Fox News.

_________________

That depends on who you ask. Some would argue that the quality of a news organization is its viewerbase/readerbase numbers. Those are generally the people whose opinion actually influences the direction of a news organization. Also, you can't measure the amount of misinformation, because your methods are not valid. Further, you're not supporting any arguments with numbers. You're just making a declaration, and interspersing some basically random numbers. As to qualitative vs. quantitative, I'd try to explain it to you, but again, you're self-admittedly incapable of understanding math and logic.

Although you can say that until you're blue in the face, it's entirely unsubstantiated.

_________________

I had no intention to moderate, but instead walk away from a conversation before it devolved to a point where moderation was required.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Except that it's totally substantiated. I've already posted one study that found that, and another study showed the same thing about issues related to the Iraq war.

Fox news lies to it's viewers, and it's viewers are significantly more likely to believe misinformation and maintain that belief. This is not a statement of opinion, it is a statement of objective and observable fact.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

No it isn't. It's already been shown how these polls carefully word the questions in order to confuse the pollee as to whether they are being asked about what actually was in the bill or what they think it will lead to.

As for the Iraq war, pretty much the same thing happened. Questions carefully refer to "direct relationships" and "direct responsibility" and as for the question of have we found WMD, the answer is yes - just not in anything like the predicted quantities. Not only that, but there's no evidence as to whether or how often FOX may have aired any of these claims. Airing them once by mistake certainly can't be responsible for a 30% difference, if, indeed they were eveer aired at all.

The entire poll is just an attempt by a rival company to tar FOX news. Corporate shennanigans, you know.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Monte, I find it amusing that you pick a poll that MSNBC ran, specifically targetting questions to demonstrate that Fox gets people to believe "lies" more often as evidence that Fox is more biased than MSNBC.

The poll itself was political ammunition for its liberal masters. And if you can look at the poll's composition objectively, instead of starting with the assumption that Fox is as bad as you think it is and saying "See? This confirms it!", that becomes very transparently obvious.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Faith in studies and polls, hmm. It amuses me where some folks choose to place their faith.

Of course, that is why we have the First Amendment. The importance of freedom OF (not from) religion in this country is so important in this country that it is covered in the First Amendment to the Constitution. If you want to believe whole heartedly with unswerving faith and devotion in a study or a poll, irregardless of the errors or biases others may see, that is your right.

Freedom of Speech is covered in the First Amendment as well. We can argue these points freely.

To all of you who believe in polls and studies without question, I see your faith in these polls and studies as misguided, under-informed and under-analyzed. I hope you come to realize the bias inherent in polling, and the self-interest evident in almost all studies that attempt to prove any political stance, right, left, or center. Someday I hope you achieve an epiphany of righteous cynicism that helps you understand the flaws inherent in these man-made constructs.

Until and if you ever do, try to consider the sources that you use to form your beliefs, and how much they can truly be trusted as they throw the gauntlet of suspicion at other fonts of knowledge, trying to bring into question their competitors veracity and goals.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

So, in your opinion, Fox News does not commonly lie to their viewers or distort facts?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

In my opinion, Fox News is usually too fast to report something that falls into the "gotcha" category against liberal positions, and to be relentless when they smell blood in the water with their own reporting.

However, they also seem to have no problem reporting articles from AP and Reuters that are unfavorable to conservative, though they just aren't as tenacious about it.

MSNBC and ABC though I would say are more guilty of non reporting issues that are not favorable to the liberal position. Its almost as if they don't report it, it didn't happen.

One jumps the gun and leaves room for errors, the others just don't mention the event, or bury where no one will read it.

In my opinion it does so to no greater degree than any other source of news, and so castigating FOX especially for doing what anyone else does anyhow is disingenuous.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Or perhaps, when viewed without Liberal-tinted glasses, they're simply against big government and higher taxes. /shrug

edit: And government subsidies for big business

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams

This speaks somewhat to the disconnect that you experience with others. First of all, simply because you believe something to be true, does not mean that opposing (or orthogonal) views have to be untrue. Nor does it mean that what you believe to be true is actually that. Your particular brand of reasoning seems to revolve around what you feel. This tends to be at odds with the brand of reasoning that involves careful consideration. There is a good reason the brain does the thinking, and the gut does the digesting. What you contend, sometimes vociferously, to be true or false often has problems. Many times, you start with both a theory and a conclusion, and then find some intervening steps that link the two, often rather tenuously. Like the above, you are starting with the conclusion that Fox commonly engages in deceptive practices. Unspoken but implicit, due to the tone, is that they do so willingly and with malice aforethought. You left that out of your question, because you are trying to force others to agree with you. What you are hoping to have happen is that someone will say "Yes, but..." so that you can cut them off (a least as much as is possible in this venue where they're going to get their entire thought out whether you want them to or not) and crow about the point you scored. But that aside, you have your conclusion already. What you don't know about your conclusion is where the devil lies. What is being deemed misinformation? Why is it being deemed misinformation? Does that analysis hold up to scrutiny? If it's a valid analysis, how valid? And so on and so forth. All details that you, in your rush to judgment, are ignorant of, and probably uncaring of. Let us imagine a scenario. On the one hand is a proponent of an ideal that you hold dear. On the other is the opponent. Both present compelling cases in support of their view. Let us further suppose that the parties in the disagreement are equally credentialed, have put in equal time on their cases, and have equally valid corroboration. Do you choose to believe one over the other, or do you think that this particular ideal may have a degree of uncertainty involved? If you choose to believe one over the other, do you castigate those who accept the opposing view? What if the evidence shifts one way or the other to some degree? If it shifts to the opposition, at what point, if ever, do you accept that trend?

_________________

I really don't get how you guys see racism everywhere. There are things which could be labled under "unprofessional" or simply "arseholes". Actual or real racism is so rare that you'll have a better chance spotting bigfoot.

This is exactly the point many here have been trying to make. To me it's as simple as 'All racism is prejudice. Not all prejudice is racism.'

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams

This is the scariest part of the whole liberal position, IMO. When you start taking the position that any criticism of a black president is rooted in racism, you diminish the chances of any black being elected to the office, because Americans WANT a president who can be criticized. We don't have, nor do we want, a monarchy or anything similar; our presidents put their pants on one leg at a time, just like we do. Telling Americans you can't criticize a black president is entirely the wrong message. Again, IMO.

Liberal tainted glasses?

I looked at wide angle shots and close up shots of the signs. I've actually sat and watched the protests in person when they were in San Antonio (they happened a block away from where I work). Every conspiracy about Obama was shouted to the mountaintops by the speakers, and greeted with nothing but adulation. The crap about Kenya, his religion, and the other surrounding fantasies were the red meat thrown to the protesters.

As for their sincerity when it comes to opposing big government and higher taxes, I just don't buy it. Where were they when Bush was expanding government at a rate here to fore unseen? Where were their huge marches on Washington when GW Bush was expanding the power of the executive? Where was their outrage at his end of life counseling provision in Medicare part D, the largest expansion of government health care since the 60's? Where was thier outrage at his tax brackets, the very same tax brackets that have ingnited their populist rage under Obama (because Bush's own sunset clause hasn't even taken effect yet)? Why is it that the only big government this movement seems to fear is big government under Obama?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Since, ultimately, you don't actually know the individuals involved or their protesting history, all of the questions you ask are purely rhetorical.

But regardless, we can just as easily turn these questions around. To wit: if you believe that expansion of government, the tax brackets, etc. were bad under Bush, then why are they suddenly now good under Obama?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

I don't necessarily think they are good under Obama. I don't think taxes are high enough for the top earners in this country, for example. I also think that Obama has done a great deal to roll back a lot of the overreach of the previous administration, but more could be done.

The inconsistency of their outrage tells me that there is more behind it than opposition to big government. I think it has a great deal to do with anti-liberal bigotry, and in some less than small measure, anti-black bigotry.

I know that sends folks here into a tizzy, but I just don't have much else in the way of explaination as to their selective application of outrage. Liberals are still fighting against the wars we are involved in, they are still fighting against the Obama administration when it takes steps backwards on transparency, and are still fighting against the policies they disagreed with under Bush. However, these tea party protesters have suddenly discovered a voracious, hateful outrage over the very things they largely did nothing about under Bush.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

What exactly has Obama rolled back?

5% of the U.S. Population pays 90% of the taxes. How is that not high enough? Should they pay 99%?

_________________