[helene_t]

luke warm, on Jan 6 2007, 06:06 PM, said:

Quote

Its entirely possible that stupid people prefer Fox News.

of course stupidity is relative...

Relative in the sense that (according to the alternative hypothesis implied by Wiki) Fow viewers are not absolutely stupid, just more so than viewers of other US networks.

But not relative in the sense of "according to Richard's definition of informedness". The statistics mentioned in Richard's post are quite conclusive, it's not a matter of opinion.

Of course, the fact that Fox viewers are less informed about World niews does not prove that they have lower IQ or less general knowledge. It's theoretically possible thay they know more about, say, football, than does the average American.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Jan 9 2007, 05:17 AM, said:

Of course, the fact that Fox viewers are less informed about World niews does not prove that they have lower IQ or less general knowledge. It's theoretically possible thay they know more about, say, football, than does the average American.

of course... or politics, or philosophy, or science, or just about anything else... however, i object to this

Quote

Fox viewers are not absolutely stupid, just more so than viewers of other US networks.

the word 'stupid' carries with it certain definitive connotations, and i wonder how anyone can make such a statement with any certitude

[pclayton]

helene_t, on Jan 9 2007, 02:17 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 6 2007, 06:06 PM, said:

Quote

Its entirely possible that stupid people prefer Fox News.

of course stupidity is relative...

Relative in the sense that (according to the alternative hypothesis implied by Wiki) Fow viewers are not absolutely stupid, just more so than viewers of other US networks.

But not relative in the sense of "according to Richard's definition of informedness". The statistics mentioned in Richard's post are quite conclusive, it's not a matter of opinion.

Of course, the fact that Fox viewers are less informed about World niews does not prove that they have lower IQ or less general knowledge. It's theoretically possible thay they know more about, say, football, than does the average American.

Helene, youre absolutely right. Fox News viewers DO have better knowledge about football. On the other hand, CNN viewers have a better knowledge about hemp farming, hacky-sack and Birkenstocks.

Do you think we can dispatch with the stereotypes? It adds nothing to this thread, or to the esprit de corps. But I guess if Wiki says it, it must be right.

Quote

Of course, the fact that Fox viewers are less informed about World niews

I'd be careful using a term like "fact" here.

[keylime]

Communism and liberalism suffer from a fundamental flaw: even tho on paper redistribution of wealth and enlightenment and such are noble goals, they both fail when the reality of human nature is factored into the situation. It is human nature to lust, to greed, to envy. So, how can two belief structures which share as a common core the concept of "equality" ever acheive the said goal of such when by nature our most basic faults destroy the opportunity that equality tries to promote?

Looking back at the election, I came to realize that it was not conservatism that was defeated - look around at the elections of Japan, Sweden, Germany, the one upcoming in France, and the stalwart that is PM Howard in Australia. Instead, it was the faux orators of conservatism in the U.S. Congress that got trounced, and frankly, as much as I hated it, it was overdue.

I look at the war in Iraq with grave concern because we don't have enough high-ranking generals that are willing to fight it out like the warriors they claim to be. When you continually place intellectuals in those positions, you're going to get a quagmire. Take a lesson from the Ethiopians: they are fighting to win resoundingly, and are getting the job done. Why won't we unleash our forces to do the same? One word: politics. Bunch of pussies our generals and admirals are becoming - stop reasoning and start fighting.

I have very strong views about Islam, and I will not express them here publically.

I strongly disagree with the notion that Fox viewers are less learned. I watch it regularly, does this mean that I am stupid and ignorant when I know I'm not? Is it because I refuse to spend a penny on the traitorous New York Times and Washington Post that I am perceived to be "in need of education"? Gee, I'm just hopeless as a piss-poor clueless ignoramus aren't I...I need a moral equivalence to be brought back into the fold of centrism and order.

Get real. Simply look at the circulation numbers and you'll see the trend of liberal fishwraps losing their shirts compared to conservative ones that are increasing share. It has nothing to do with technology outpacing the papers; it does have tho everything to do with the fact that people now have an equalizer in combatting the severe bias of the media: the Internet.

No longer does the newspaper have a free run. The scrutiny is so high these days that when the NYT, the WP, the AP, and Al-Reuters step out of line, the chorus starts signing immediately. It's unfortunate that these formerly prestigious organizations have had to resort to blatant lies in order to attempt to maintain share.

So, I'm going to go back to my cave now and pound rocks together while my American flag and yellow ribbon is proudly and prominently displayed on my porch daily.

[cherdano]

I haven't watched Fox many times, but when I did, it was often almost embarrassing how biased it was. I remember an interview with (I believe) Rice, and the interviewer went out of its way making helpful suggestions supporting Rice's arguments, sometimes even preemptively suggesting "good" answers to his questions.
Of course I am a "liberal" by US standards, but I can't imagine I wouldn't notice similar bias in CNN when it just goes together with horribly low journalistic quality.

So I have a hard time understanding how anyone could claim "CNN is as biased as FOX".

[cherdano]

keylime, on Jan 9 2007, 06:40 PM, said:

Looking back at the election, I came to realize that it was not conservatism that was defeated - look around at the elections of Japan, Sweden, Germany, the one upcoming in France, and the stalwart that is PM Howard in Australia.

I don't know about the others, but you should better leave Germany out of that. German parliament still has a majority of the social democrats, the green party and the former communist party (which are all way left of the US democrats).

Sure, the social democrats lost quite a bit, and the conservatives have the biggest party, but that was a reaction to perceived bad government for a couple of years, not a shift in values.

[pbleighton]

"I look at the war in Iraq with grave concern because we don't have enough high-ranking generals that are willing to fight it out like the warriors they claim to be. "

ROFL.

What a rationalization!

This war was doomed from the start.

"Looking back at the election, I came to realize that it was not conservatism that was defeated"

Hee, hee.

Peter

[keylime]

The war was definitely not doomed from the start. There is no rationalization in this, especially when you've been to that part of the world and understand how the "other side" lives. For the most part, Iraq celebrated when Saddam went to the noose (granted the taunting was just beyond what is acceptable - no need for that), especially the Kurds. I'd go reenlist if it wasn't for the knees and wrists being so dinged up. Of course we should thank Mr. Clinton for drawing down our troops to think levels for this but....

Furthermore, I believe the war is being won. It's just unfortunate that many feel that war is that of a mathematical equation with one finite solution; that's simply the furthest from the truth. War is a very dirty business, and with even the very light casualty totals we've had, many feel that it's too much. That is the fault of everyone: the generals, the media, President Bush. We had gotten used to having such clear superiority with all of our technology that when this became the hard slog that it is, we as society thought the sky was falling.

I talk from time to time with my former members of my squadron, who are overseas in theater. Realize I've known them for 12+ years now so they don't B.S. me when they talk about the hardships and the difficulties. I've yet tho to ever read them complaining about the job; they are proud to be there, and have openly questioned why they are not fully supported at the task at hand. I'd do anything in the world to have them home, but if they're over there, I absolutely refuse to accept anything but victory. It is attainable; it's up to the public to enforce its will. It isn't certainly for lack of effort on our military's part in the field.

[hrothgar]

keylime, on Jan 9 2007, 07:40 PM, said:

Take a lesson from the Ethiopians: they are fighting to win resoundingly, and are getting the job done. Why won't we unleash our forces to do the same? One word: politics. Bunch of pussies our generals and admirals are becoming - stop reasoning and start fighting.

Dwayne

I would have thought that at least one of the lessons from Iraq had become perfectly apparent by now: Its relatively easy to seize territory and kill people. Creating a stable society is hard work. "Nation building" requires time, effort, lots of money, and a sustained commitment to process.

The Ethiopians are in the same position that the US was 4.5 years ago. They seized a lot of territory. However, its far from clear whether they will be able to stablize Somalia or even Mogadishu. Only time will tell...

If this is a representative example of your learning curve at work then you probably don't want to be asking if people think that you're "stupid or ignorant". You probably won't like the answer the comes back.

[pbleighton]

"Furthermore, I believe the war is being won."

This is totally delusional. We are not "losing" in the conventional sense of the word, but we have started a civil war, and have no way to stop it.

"It isn't certainly for lack of effort on our military's part in the field."

True.

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Like any oligarchy, the transition from populist sentiment to autocratic obligation is relatively quick and often hidden behind "benevolent" or "necessary" actions for the good of those under the control of the power wielders.

Oligarchies tend to "devolve" into dictatorships as the stronger elements within the inner circle fight for supremacy. The eventual loser is always the people under their thumbs.....

[Al_U_Card]

pbleighton, on Jan 9 2007, 12:11 PM, said:

"Furthermore, I believe the war is being won."

This is totally delusional.

What a nitemare. Recurring with cold sweats and nite terrors. When will they wake up, or will the drugs that they have been fed keep them forever in their stupor?

[keylime]

Just because I view this as a long-term item (I look at Iraq as a battle) doesn't entitle the view of delusionment to be what I'm about. This is part of the reason I comment little here anymore; whenever I say something directly, I'm labelled in one way or another as inferior or mental and I've had enough. It's ridiculous that name-calling is the response to something fundamentally different and non-mainstream. To say I'm furious right now is an understatement.

[pbleighton]

"Just because I view this as a long-term item (I look at Iraq as a battle) doesn't entitle the view of delusionment to be what I'm about. This is part of the reason I comment little here anymore; whenever I say something directly, I'm labelled in one way or another as inferior or mental and I've had enough. It's ridiculous that name-calling is the response to something fundamentally different and non-mainstream. To say I'm furious right now is an understatement"

"...the traitorous New York Times and Washington Post..."

"No longer does the newspaper have a free run. The scrutiny is so high these days that when the NYT, the WP, the AP, and Al-Reuters step out of line, the chorus starts signing immediately. It's unfortunate that these formerly prestigious organizations have had to resort to blatant lies in order to attempt to maintain share."

You are one of the more "provocative" posters in the Water Cooler (possibly the only thing you and I have in common), and you can't expect a free ride.

If you can't take it, I suggest that you don't dish it out.

You are also free to ignore posters whose posts you don't like. I have done this, and it's a good solution.

Peter

[keylime]

I didn't start it. I just responded to it when I see the nonsense that's passed along as fact. I simply am passionate about it and therefore this is why I have had my fill of this. To me, there's nothing wrong with dissent, there's everything wrong with the self-righteousness of tone that some espouse. I call it like I see it; never have I deliberately or intentionally to my knowledge have I embarked in character assassinations.

[pbleighton]

"I didn't start it. I just responded to it when I see the nonsense that's passed along as fact. I simply am passionate about it and therefore this is why I have had my fill of this. To me, there's nothing wrong with dissent, there's everything wrong with the self-righteousness of tone that some espouse. I call it like I see it; never have I deliberately or intentionally to my knowledge have I embarked in character assassinations."

You don't think you dish it out?

My goodness.

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

keylime, on Jan 9 2007, 02:33 PM, said:

I didn't start it. I just responded to it when I see the nonsense that's passed along as fact. I simply am passionate about it and therefore this is why I have had my fill of this. To me, there's nothing wrong with dissent, there's everything wrong with the self-righteousness of tone that some espouse. I call it like I see it; never have I deliberately or intentionally to my knowledge have I embarked in character assassinations.

Delusional, mistaken, mis-informed, confused, wrong.....these are all terms that I would accept (and have been called on more than one occasion) as descriptors of my stance or statement. As a personal afront? We all know of lots of those terms and everyone in here (almost entirely) are all civil and intelligent people.

Now if you were CSDenmark, you might have a legitimate beef.. ..but then so do all of the people that converse with him

[Al_U_Card]

Al Qaeda.....the bogeyman for the 21st century.....now who is telling the fables?

[helene_t]

pclayton, on Jan 9 2007, 06:04 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jan 9 2007, 02:17 AM, said:

[....] Of course, the fact that Fox viewers are less informed about World niews

I'd be careful using a term like "fact" here.

Sorry, you're right. It could be publication bias. Or it could be that the questions were selected so that conservatives were more likely to find the truth incomfortable and therefore provide a wrong answer.

[helene_t]

keylime, on Jan 9 2007, 06:40 PM, said:

Communism and liberalism suffer from a fundamental flaw: even tho on paper redistribution of wealth and enlightenment ......

The assertion that "liberalism" involves redistribution of wealth surprised me, but having looked the term of in the source of eternal truth (wikipedia) I saw that this is actually a common way of using the word "liberalism" in the U.S. I wonder how the word has aquired so different (and so strange) meanings.

In history class, I asked my teacher if it was really true that before the civil war, the democrats were pro slavery and the republicans against. He asked me "well, who's conservative and who's liberal"? Since the democrats were conservative and consequently pro slavery. I knew that nowadays the democrats are called "liberals" so I wondered if the two parties exchanged ideology, or if it was just a semantic change. Or some combination of both.

Here in Europe, very few people call themselves "liberals". Ideologies are pretty much dead, but even when they were allive, we only had a number of different kinds of socialism (Trotskism, Stalinism, Maoism etc.). Then we had social democrats who in some countries were (and are) refered to as "socialists" and finally the "non-socialism" which united all those right-wingers modern enough to recognize that ideology was dead. There was a short era following the fall of the Berlin Wall when a few avant-garde non-socialists thought that they needed a colour for their flag now they were about to concour the World, and called themselves neo-conservatives or neo-liberals, refering to the names of the respective party. Those right-wing ideologies dissapeared. Today, if you hear the word "liberalist" it's probably a swear-word used by a left extremist, refering to everything that is not left extremist.

Of course you can be "liberal" with respect to specific issues (immigration, polution, tobaco, prostitution, World trade etc) but someone liberal with respect to one issue generally cannot be expected also to be liberal with respect to other issues.