FARK.com: (7039782) "Authoritarian people have a stronger emotional need for an outlet like Fox, where they can find affirmation and escape factual challenges to their beliefs"

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		"Authoritarian people have a stronger emotional need for an outlet like Fox, where they can find affirmation and escape factual challenges to their beliefs" (alternet.org)		329
		More: Interesting, Fox News, dictators, beliefs, PolitiFact

• • •

2674 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Apr 2012 at 9:03 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7039782

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

329 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

ginandbacon		2012-04-09 10:40:09 AM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: ginandbacon: Sorry, I could have been clearer here. I meant to say that the majority of people in this country are misinformed on many issues. Fox viewers and conservatives don't have a monopoly on ignorance.

True, but the entire point of this article is that while many people, maybe even the majority of people, in this country are misinformed, people who watch Fox News are consistently the MOST misinformed. Your entire argument seems to take the following form:

Article : The majority of the worlds water is held in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
You: Yeah, but I think we can all agree that there are lots of bodies of water that hold a lot of water.

Yeah, it's true, but it doesn't really do anything to address the point under discussion except to distract from it

You are missing my point. If we are going to go around attacking Fox viewers as uniformed and thus somehow illegitimate, what's to stop them from pulling out all of the data about how women and minorities score among the most uninformed voters in the country?

My point is that it's a stupid conversation to be having.

Let's stick to facts and not try to denigrate each other. I'm a liberal because I believe in social justice, science, economic responsibility, and education.

I believe I don't need to laugh at my opponent's sources to win that argument.

Gunther		2012-04-09 10:40:42 AM

sprawl15: go back and re-read my post and look carefully for the part that said that the left didn't fight for civil rights.

I'd tell you not to be an asshole about this, but judging by your habit of throwing insults at anyone who replies to you, that's probably expecting too much. Here's how the argument has gone so far:

Me: The right opposed civil rights, the left fought for them

You: This right-winger fought for them!

Me: That's one example, it doesn't disprove my point.

You:I NEVER SAID IT DID!! APOLOGIZE TO ME!!!

Do you see the farking problem there? You responded to my post with a anecdote that any sane person would infer as an attempt at rebuttal, then when it's shot down, you instantly claim it wasn't meant as one, and that I'm stupid for taking your obvious rebuttal as a rebuttal. This method of argument isn't you being "clever", it's pathetic and childish.

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-04-09 10:42:24 AM

Frank N Stein: Philip Francis Queeg: sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: Don't let the actual facts get in the way of your arguments.

The only thing I said was that Heston marched for civil rights. What imaginary argument are you trying to attack? I'm kind of scared of looking into your brain, since I tend to dislike authoritarian nonsense, but I'm interested. Please, let me know what strawman you're beating on.

You called him a "notable conservative" who marched for Civil Rights. That's making the assumption that at the time Heston marched for Civil Rights that he held the same conservative views he would decades later. That assumption is unfounded.

You just acknowledged that his argument is factual. You also failed to provide any evidence that he changed his mind about this subject over time, instead basing your entire argument on the possibility that he changed his mind on a different law once.

Basically, you're arguing that because he may have changed his mind about one law from the 60s, that all of a sudden invalidates every position he's every had. This argument is cripplingly retarded, and you should feel bad for being in the gene pool.

Wow do you have it backwards. Sprawl is arguing that since Heston later becoming known as a Conservative, it proves that it was conservatives who supported the Civil Rights movement. His later view do not prove that he held those views at the time, nor would they invalidate more liberal views that he held earlier in his life like support for Gun control.

Heston campaigned for Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy. He opposed the War in Vietnam at the time, another position he later recanted.

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-04-09 10:45:24 AM

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: You called him a "notable conservative" who marched for Civil Rights. That's making the assumption that at the time Heston marched for Civil Rights that he held the same conservative views he would decades later.

He is (well, was) a "notable conservative". He did march for Civil Rights. So your objection is basically...you don't like Heston, so you'll invent any narrative you can to attack him. Thanks for explaining your invented narrative, though, it's fascinating to watch people try to out-derp the RWA's.

I'm presenting facts that happen not to agree with the narrative you have invented.

skullkrusher		2012-04-09 10:47:07 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Frank N Stein: Philip Francis Queeg: sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: Don't let the actual facts get in the way of your arguments.

The only thing I said was that Heston marched for civil rights. What imaginary argument are you trying to attack? I'm kind of scared of looking into your brain, since I tend to dislike authoritarian nonsense, but I'm interested. Please, let me know what strawman you're beating on.

You called him a "notable conservative" who marched for Civil Rights. That's making the assumption that at the time Heston marched for Civil Rights that he held the same conservative views he would decades later. That assumption is unfounded.

You just acknowledged that his argument is factual. You also failed to provide any evidence that he changed his mind about this subject over time, instead basing your entire argument on the possibility that he changed his mind on a different law once.

Basically, you're arguing that because he may have changed his mind about one law from the 60s, that all of a sudden invalidates every position he's every had. This argument is cripplingly retarded, and you should feel bad for being in the gene pool.

Wow do you have it backwards. Sprawl is arguing that since Heston later becoming known as a Conservative, it proves that it was conservatives who supported the Civil Rights movement. His later view do not prove that he held those views at the time, nor would they invalidate more liberal views that he held earlier in his life like support for Gun control.

Heston campaigned for Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy. He opposed the War in Vietnam at the time, another position he later recanted.

we're going with JFK as an example of liberalism now?

liam76		2012-04-09 10:47:23 AM

coeyagi: liam76: coeyagi: sprawl15: Gunther: Like the recent Talking Point I've seen bandied about the internet that it was the conservatives who fought for civil rights.

A notable conservative that fought for civil rights was Charlton Heston. That's one part of what made Moore's shenanigans in Bowling for Columbine so idiotic.
[newsimg.bbc.co.uk image 466x300]

Lochsteppe: The difference is that Fox has no apparent journalistic integrity or ethic to keep its narrative in check.

This implies that they're driven by some external moral factor. In reality, they'll have as many morals as their viewers will demand. The blame lands squarely on the shoulders of the populace that keeps watching Fox's nonsense. Glenn Beck didn't get fired for puppet shows or anti-Soros freestyle rap battles, he got fired for poor ratings.

Your argument is wonderful - it's akin to "Timothy McVeigh likes puppies and fought for animal rights, which made the US Government's prosecution of him inexcusable!"

//from my cold dead hands! done, asshole

Except Timothy McVeigh actually blew up a building.

Contrary to how Moore portrays it Charlton didn't give that speech in response to columbine, nor did NRA have a blowout.

The NRA has a "blowout" every time there is a mass shooting, bro.

No idea if this is what passes for wit with you or what you actually believe...

zappaisfrank		2012-04-09 10:47:44 AM

tgregory: zappaisfrank: tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.

Um, no.

No? No to both or do you have a favorite you'd like to defend? Government has grown under both parties and both have agendas to limit freedoms of others. So I'm not sure how you could deny either of doing that.

So, I take it you're one of those political hipsters who distinguishes themselves by being an "outsider" and "above it all" so as to enable yourself to rail against the "two party system", which also adds up to a free pass from objectively looking at the situation and allows you to fart it all off with bogus equivalency comparisons.

Lemme guess.."Paulbot", right? The "growing government" thingie was a dead giveaway.

As far as "limiting freedoms"..can you give me a specific example of the "freedoms" you've lost since President Obama took office?

X-boxershorts		2012-04-09 10:48:24 AM

randomjsa: As always, you will know liberals by what they accuse others of.

You look so good in pink

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-04-09 10:49:07 AM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Frank N Stein: Philip Francis Queeg: sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: Don't let the actual facts get in the way of your arguments.

The only thing I said was that Heston marched for civil rights. What imaginary argument are you trying to attack? I'm kind of scared of looking into your brain, since I tend to dislike authoritarian nonsense, but I'm interested. Please, let me know what strawman you're beating on.

You called him a "notable conservative" who marched for Civil Rights. That's making the assumption that at the time Heston marched for Civil Rights that he held the same conservative views he would decades later. That assumption is unfounded.

You just acknowledged that his argument is factual. You also failed to provide any evidence that he changed his mind about this subject over time, instead basing your entire argument on the possibility that he changed his mind on a different law once.

Basically, you're arguing that because he may have changed his mind about one law from the 60s, that all of a sudden invalidates every position he's every had. This argument is cripplingly retarded, and you should feel bad for being in the gene pool.

Wow do you have it backwards. Sprawl is arguing that since Heston later becoming known as a Conservative, it proves that it was conservatives who supported the Civil Rights movement. His later view do not prove that he held those views at the time, nor would they invalidate more liberal views that he held earlier in his life like support for Gun control.

Heston campaigned for Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy. He opposed the War in Vietnam at the time, another position he later recanted.

we're going with JFK as an example of liberalism now?

He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.

zappaisfrank		2012-04-09 10:49:47 AM

MithrandirBooga: zappaisfrank: Fox also NEVER corrects anything they report that is wrong. That's another feature with right wingers..they will NEVER EVER admit to being wrong about ANYTHING EVER. They'll deflect, tap dance around, blame shift and make things up to avoid admitting they're wrong.

I've noticed this. My theory is that right wingers have to extrapolate everything to the Nth degree. So for example:

- Gay marriage. If we allow that, then obviously we have to allow turtle-table marriage as well.
- Individual mandate. If the government can force you to buy insurance, then they can and will force you to buy a Chevy Volt Gay Black Abortion Edition.
- Gun Control. If the government takes away our fully automatic machine guns then that means the government will take away our fingernails too because we can scratch people with them.

And so on.

So naturally, using that line of thinking I honestly believe they are incapable of acknowledging a lie, since any single instance of a lie could mean that the entire ideology is a lie.

/hint: it is.

www.williambyrdband.org

zappaisfrank		2012-04-09 10:51:11 AM

X-boxershorts: randomjsa: As always, you will know liberals by what they accuse others of.

I see what you did there...

skullkrusher		2012-04-09 10:51:18 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Frank N Stein: Philip Francis Queeg: sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: Don't let the actual facts get in the way of your arguments.

The only thing I said was that Heston marched for civil rights. What imaginary argument are you trying to attack? I'm kind of scared of looking into your brain, since I tend to dislike authoritarian nonsense, but I'm interested. Please, let me know what strawman you're beating on.

You called him a "notable conservative" who marched for Civil Rights. That's making the assumption that at the time Heston marched for Civil Rights that he held the same conservative views he would decades later. That assumption is unfounded.

You just acknowledged that his argument is factual. You also failed to provide any evidence that he changed his mind about this subject over time, instead basing your entire argument on the possibility that he changed his mind on a different law once.

Basically, you're arguing that because he may have changed his mind about one law from the 60s, that all of a sudden invalidates every position he's every had. This argument is cripplingly retarded, and you should feel bad for being in the gene pool.

Wow do you have it backwards. Sprawl is arguing that since Heston later becoming known as a Conservative, it proves that it was conservatives who supported the Civil Rights movement. His later view do not prove that he held those views at the time, nor would they invalidate more liberal views that he held earlier in his life like support for Gun control.

Heston campaigned for Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy. He opposed the War in Vietnam at the time, another position he later recanted.

we're going with JFK as an example of liberalism now?

He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.

Richard "Captain EPA" Nixon?
I think the country would take Nixon in a heartbeat over the current crop of GO,Please

eraser8		2012-04-09 10:53:30 AM

sprawl15: He is (well, was) a "notable conservative". He did march for Civil Rights.

Serious question: what does that have to do with anything?

Yes, I've read through the thread. But, from your first mention of Heston, I could find any rhyme or reason for why you decided to cite him.

It certainly didn't address the point you were responding to.

Bagelox-99		2012-04-09 10:54:19 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: Or it could be that we just aren't as proudly ignorant as you are.

Future NRA President Heston publicly supported the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Just one rather stark example of how Heston's political view changed over the years.

That still has nothing to do with anything.

Sure thing Champ. Don't let the actual facts get in the way of your arguments.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

sprawl15		2012-04-09 10:55:20 AM

Cubicle Jockey: Well, no, you also commented that Michael Moore did something wrong to him in BFC. As I have not seen BFC, what claim did Mr. Moore make with regards to Mr. Heston on civil rights?

It was a fractal case of stupidity. Specifically on civil rights, he first painted the NRA as an organization with racist roots, then fabricated a story about the NRA rushing to the shooting of a young black girl to hold a rally about how this is an example of everyone needing guns, then went full retard in an interview and asked questions about his imaginary history, and Breitbarted the christ out of the interview footage to make Heston sound racist. There's a lot that one could criticize Heston for, and Moore decided to make one up.

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-04-09 10:55:58 AM

skullkrusher: He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.

Richard "Captain EPA" Nixon?
I think the country would take Nixon in a heartbeat over the current crop of GO,Please

Yep. Kennedy was more liberal than Nixon was in 1960.

The politics of individuals and groups change over time. What a shock.

X-boxershorts		2012-04-09 10:57:03 AM

Since it hasn't been linked to yet, I present the study that laid the groundwork for Howard Deans book as well as the current paper under discussion in this thread:

The Authoritarians (new window)

Mind you, those who classified as right wing authoritarians invariable and always blew up the world, did not negotiate in good faith and always assumed the very worst in motives about their opponents, even when no evidence existed regarding ulterior motives.

It's a long read but worthwhile.

impaler		2012-04-09 10:57:38 AM

imontheinternet: So, Republicans are the only people who run away when their core beliefs are challenged? The only people who like hearing things that jive with their overall worldview?

I'm just grateful that the discipline of psychology is here to give us such concrete, infallible results, which can be replicated at will.

Replicated at will:
Link (new window)

X-boxershorts		2012-04-09 10:59:06 AM

impaler: imontheinternet: So, Republicans are the only people who run away when their core beliefs are challenged? The only people who like hearing things that jive with their overall worldview?

I'm just grateful that the discipline of psychology is here to give us such concrete, infallible results, which can be replicated at will.

Replicated at will:
Link (new window)

Yes...replicated. At will. Over and over.

skullkrusher		2012-04-09 10:59:45 AM

X-boxershorts: Since it hasn't been linked to yet, I present the study that laid the groundwork for Howard Deans book as well as the current paper under discussion in this thread:

The Authoritarians (new window)

Mind you, those who classified as right wing authoritarians invariable and always blew up the world, did not negotiate in good faith and always assumed the very worst in motives about their opponents, even when no evidence existed regarding ulterior motives.

It's a long read but worthwhile.

Trust but verify. Sounds like sound policy to me.

ginandbacon		2012-04-09 11:00:20 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.

Richard "Captain EPA" Nixon?
I think the country would take Nixon in a heartbeat over the current crop of GO,Please

Yep. Kennedy was more liberal than Nixon was in 1960.

The politics of individuals and groups change over time. What a shock.

Nixon engineered the blatantly racist and horrific drug policy. But yes, I would probably take him over what the GOP is offering up today. I would take any Dem from almost any era over him, though.

X-boxershorts		2012-04-09 11:01:26 AM

skullkrusher: X-boxershorts: Since it hasn't been linked to yet, I present the study that laid the groundwork for Howard Deans book as well as the current paper under discussion in this thread:

The Authoritarians (new window)

Mind you, those who classified as right wing authoritarians invariable and always blew up the world, did not negotiate in good faith and always assumed the very worst in motives about their opponents, even when no evidence existed regarding ulterior motives.

It's a long read but worthwhile.

Trust but verify. Sounds like sound policy to me.

Unfortunately, there was never any trust on the RW Authoritarians part. Blowing up the world shouldn't be considered a good outcome.

apoptotic		2012-04-09 11:05:18 AM

I wish I could borrow Obama's time machine to go pick up Marshall McLuhan and bring him to the present for a visit. It would be interesting to hear his thoughts on Fox News and social media, although I suspect his thoughts would boil down to "Ha! I told you so."

sprawl15		2012-04-09 11:05:43 AM

eraser8: Serious question: what does that have to do with anything?

Blanket statements like "Conservatives do X" or "Liberals do Y" are almost always easily disproven. "LOL PEOPLE SAY CONSERVATIVES MARCHED FOR CIVIL RIGHTS" is easily disproved by a single picture of a single conservative marching for civil rights. The insane anger in response to simply saying that Heston marched for civil rights (equating such a statement to defending McVeigh? Really?) is evidence of people committing the same sins they're yelling at the right wingers for committing. Rational discussion is only welcome as long as it meets the pre-determined conclusion.

Philip Francis Queeg: I'm presenting facts that happen not to agree with the narrative you have invented.

The 'narrative' I'm going with is that Heston marched for civil rights. What fact have you presented that doesn't agree with that?

Gunther: You responded to my post with a anecdote that any sane person would infer as an attempt at rebuttal, then when it's shot down

'Shot down'? I'll offer you the same question: what fact have you presented that 'shoots down' the idea that Heston marched for civil rights?

Gunther: I'd tell you not to be an asshole about this, but judging by your habit of throwing insults at anyone who replies to you, that's probably expecting too much.

Yeah, we can't all keep it civil like this classy gent:

Gunther: You don't want to admit the obvious and proven fact that it was the left in America that fought for civil rights and it was the right that was opposed.

Clearly, a bastion of rational, non-assholish behavior with nothing but the best of intentions.

USP .45		2012-04-09 11:06:54 AM

Authoritarian people have a stronger emotional need for an outlet like Fox

wow that's not loaded at all.

Cat owning Mac lesbians have a stronger emotional need for MSNBC.

sprawl15		2012-04-09 11:07:10 AM

X-boxershorts: did not negotiate in good faith and always assumed the very worst in motives about their opponents, even when no evidence existed regarding ulterior motives.

Sounds familiar.

Bagelox-99		2012-04-09 11:10:36 AM

USP .45: Authoritarian people have a stronger emotional need for an outlet like Fox

wow that's not loaded at all.

Cat owning Mac lesbians have a stronger emotional need for MSNBC.

How dare you insult anti-authoritarian people by insinuating they own cats and are Mac lesbians. Wait, what is a Mac lesbian? A woman in a utilikilt?

HotIgneous Intruder		2012-04-09 11:11:29 AM

ginandbacon: Nixon engineered the blatantly racist and horrific drug policy. But yes, I would probably take him over what the GOP is offering up today. I would take any Dem from almost any era over him, though.

I'd take Nixon over Obama.

zappaisfrank		2012-04-09 11:11:42 AM

sprawl15: X-boxershorts: did not negotiate in good faith and always assumed the very worst in motives about their opponents, even when no evidence existed regarding ulterior motives.

Sounds familiar.

It does sound familiar..it reminds me of all the times I've been debating Conservatives and they take it upon themselves to write my life story, fill in blanks about my beliefs, call me names, assume I'm an "Obamabot" or any other method they choose to prevent themselves from having to admit the truth about themselves or what they profess to be the truth.

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-04-09 11:11:44 AM

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: I'm presenting facts that happen not to agree with the narrative you have invented.

The 'narrative' I'm going with is that Heston marched for civil rights. What fact have you presented that doesn't agree with that?

OK, I missed the fact that your post about Charleton Heston marching for Civil rights had no relationship with anything else in the thread, and that it certainly did not relate to the post you were responding to about conservative sup[port for Civil Rights movement. Forgive me for believing that your post actually had any relevance to the discussion at hand, I should have assumes that it was a completely pointless non sequitur.

skullkrusher		2012-04-09 11:14:25 AM

ginandbacon: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.

Richard "Captain EPA" Nixon?
I think the country would take Nixon in a heartbeat over the current crop of GO,Please

Yep. Kennedy was more liberal than Nixon was in 1960.

The politics of individuals and groups change over time. What a shock.

Nixon engineered the blatantly racist and horrific drug policy. But yes, I would probably take him over what the GOP is offering up today. I would take any Dem from almost any era over him, though.

well, our drug policy IS horrific but it is not racist. It's application DOES impact minorities much more negatively than it does white people but disparate impact is not evidence of racism.

X-boxershorts		2012-04-09 11:14:27 AM

sprawl15: X-boxershorts: did not negotiate in good faith and always assumed the very worst in motives about their opponents, even when no evidence existed regarding ulterior motives.

Sounds familiar.

Sure does. Sounds like the GoP of today that has done everything it possibly could as the party out of power, to sabotage this president during a genuine international economic crisis.

skullkrusher		2012-04-09 11:15:56 AM

X-boxershorts: skullkrusher: X-boxershorts: Since it hasn't been linked to yet, I present the study that laid the groundwork for Howard Deans book as well as the current paper under discussion in this thread:

The Authoritarians (new window)

Mind you, those who classified as right wing authoritarians invariable and always blew up the world, did not negotiate in good faith and always assumed the very worst in motives about their opponents, even when no evidence existed regarding ulterior motives.

It's a long read but worthwhile.

Trust but verify. Sounds like sound policy to me.

Unfortunately, there was never any trust on the RW Authoritarians part. Blowing up the world shouldn't be considered a good outcome.

if you were playing a simulation would you go for the blow up the world option or the work together to solve our problems route? I'd blow stuff up, personally, but I never thought the Cultural Victory was all that much fun ;)

X-boxershorts		2012-04-09 11:16:55 AM

skullkrusher: ginandbacon: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.

Richard "Captain EPA" Nixon?
I think the country would take Nixon in a heartbeat over the current crop of GO,Please

Yep. Kennedy was more liberal than Nixon was in 1960.

The politics of individuals and groups change over time. What a shock.

Nixon engineered the blatantly racist and horrific drug policy. But yes, I would probably take him over what the GOP is offering up today. I would take any Dem from almost any era over him, though.

well, our drug policy IS horrific but it is not racist. It's application DOES impact minorities much more negatively than it does white people but disparate impact is not evidence of racism.

The policy itself may not be racist, however, it's implementation has certainly been used to directly negatively impact the minority race.

CapnBlues		2012-04-09 11:17:30 AM

Frank N Stein: [oi43.tinypic.com image 500x544]

i know you posted this as a joke, but if you had to model a society after one of those four groups, i think teenagers are probably the least-bad. they're generally pretty generous, open-minded people, who want to believe the very best about people. Teenagers do a lot of community service, have a lot of hopes for the future, and generally are inclusive of outsiders at a much better rate than older people.

I work with teenagers at my summer gig, and they're really very interesting and big-hearted people, once you get the phones and computers out of their hands. Even cynical teenagers want to help others, even if they don't see it as a probable outcome of their actions. There is an impulse in them to do good for the world. At least, the kids I teach are like this.

Teenagers would make pot legal, they'd make gay marriage legal, they'd make education free, and they'd be a lot less likely to try to regulate what happens in your bedroom. Yes, they'd make some foolish decisions, too, but could they really be more fiscally and socially irresponsible than the current congress?

tgregory		2012-04-09 11:18:27 AM

zappaisfrank: tgregory: zappaisfrank: tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.

Um, no.

No? No to both or do you have a favorite you'd like to defend? Government has grown under both parties and both have agendas to limit freedoms of others. So I'm not sure how you could deny either of doing that.

So, I take it you're one of those political hipsters who distinguishes themselves by being an "outsider" and "above it all" so as to enable yourself to rail against the "two party system", which also adds up to a free pass from objectively looking at the situation and allows you to fart it all off with bogus equivalency comparisons.

Lemme guess.."Paulbot", right? The "growing government" thingie was a dead giveaway.

As far as "limiting freedoms"..can you give me a specific example of the "freedoms" you've lost since President Obama took office?

Sentences I presented that end with a question mark were questions for you. I see you must've missed those.

I just have a "crazy idea" that people should own their own lives and property. Weird, huh?

Are you opposed to anything more than a two party system or are there only two sides for every issue? You approach the idea of personal liberty as being a wild and crazy one, but I think wanting to oppress others in order to reach political or social goals is crazy.

Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Defense Budget, Patriot Act, War on Drugs, Gay Marriage. All of those sound familiar? They should. The Democrats took to the streets over them when Bush was in power. Obama promised to handle all of them. I guess it's ok now that your guy is in power?

The problem with granting more power is eventually someone you won't like will have that power, so be careful for what you wish for.

Would've loved to have seen the protests from Democrats had Bush been the one to sign this: President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law (new window) But instead there've been crickets.

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-04-09 11:19:13 AM

skullkrusher: ginandbacon: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.

Richard "Captain EPA" Nixon?
I think the country would take Nixon in a heartbeat over the current crop of GO,Please

Yep. Kennedy was more liberal than Nixon was in 1960.

The politics of individuals and groups change over time. What a shock.

Nixon engineered the blatantly racist and horrific drug policy. But yes, I would probably take him over what the GOP is offering up today. I would take any Dem from almost any era over him, though.

well, our drug policy IS horrific but it is not racist. It's application DOES impact minorities much more negatively than it does white people but disparate impact is not evidence of racism.

The recently revised disparity in the sentences required for crack trafficking and cocaine trafficking was pretty blatantly racist.

sprawl15		2012-04-09 11:19:28 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: OK, I missed the fact that your post about Charleton Heston marching for Civil rights had no relationship with anything else in the thread, and that it certainly did not relate to the post you were responding to about conservative sup[port for Civil Rights movement.

It was an example of a person regarded as a conservative who marched for civil rights. Maybe you should examine your own motivations and find why this simple assertion makes you so angry? You're at the point of declaring it a non-sequitor when it followed a statement mocking the concept of conservatives supporting civil rights. You're like a parody of your usually incoherent self. It's like someone tied down whidbey and force fed him crazy pills.

zappaisfrank: It does sound familiar..it reminds me of all the times I've been debating Conservatives and they take it upon themselves to write my life story, fill in blanks about my beliefs, call me names, assume I'm an "Obamabot" or any other method they choose to prevent themselves from having to admit the truth about themselves or what they profess to be the truth.

I've had hilarious threads where people like PFQ call me a fascist while people on the right are simultaneously calling me an Obama love slave. People like these simply can't see any positions other than "us" and "them". It's sad, but kind of hilarious when you can unintentionally get a half dozen people to throw a shiatfit with a simple fact to rebut a general statement.

coeyagi		2012-04-09 11:19:55 AM

liam76: coeyagi: liam76: coeyagi: sprawl15: Gunther: Like the recent Talking Point I've seen bandied about the internet that it was the conservatives who fought for civil rights.

A notable conservative that fought for civil rights was Charlton Heston. That's one part of what made Moore's shenanigans in Bowling for Columbine so idiotic.
[newsimg.bbc.co.uk image 466x300]

Lochsteppe: The difference is that Fox has no apparent journalistic integrity or ethic to keep its narrative in check.

This implies that they're driven by some external moral factor. In reality, they'll have as many morals as their viewers will demand. The blame lands squarely on the shoulders of the populace that keeps watching Fox's nonsense. Glenn Beck didn't get fired for puppet shows or anti-Soros freestyle rap battles, he got fired for poor ratings.

Your argument is wonderful - it's akin to "Timothy McVeigh likes puppies and fought for animal rights, which made the US Government's prosecution of him inexcusable!"

//from my cold dead hands! done, asshole

Except Timothy McVeigh actually blew up a building.

Contrary to how Moore portrays it Charlton didn't give that speech in response to columbine, nor did NRA have a blowout.

The NRA has a "blowout" every time there is a mass shooting, bro.

No idea if this is what passes for wit with you or what you actually believe...

No idea if you deliberately missed the fact that it wasn't meant to be witty but rather factual that every time gun control comes up after a horrific mass shooting the NRA has a "blowout" defending every law on the books regarding guns, or if you picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

eraser8		2012-04-09 11:20:24 AM

sprawl15: Blanket statements like "Conservatives do X" or "Liberals do Y" are almost always easily disproven. "LOL PEOPLE SAY CONSERVATIVES MARCHED FOR CIVIL RIGHTS" is easily disproved by a single picture of a single conservative marching for civil rights.

There are a couple of things wrong with your argument here. First, you posted a 60s era picture of Charlton Heston...but, you failed to demonstrate that Heston was a conservative AT THE TIME THE protests were happening and the photo was taken.

You basically asserted that since Charlton Heston was widely considered conservative in 2008, he must have also been one when he was protesting for civil rights. Where's you evidence?

Second, you can't dismiss the claim that "conservatives didn't march for civil rights" by citing a single conservative (even if you had gone through the effort to establish the person's conservatism). You'd need at least two.

Third, It was pretty clear from context that Gunther was referring to conservatives in a collective sense. The is, his statement could not reasonably be interpreted as meaning, "no person self-identifying as conservative could possibly have demonstrated for black civil rights."

This point is especially stark because of the way Gunther worded his claim. He wrote, "Like the recent Talking Point I've seen bandied about the internet that it was 'the' conservatives who fought for civil rights." If he had omitted the "the," it might have been possible to (dishonestly) interpret the meaning of his claim as you chose to and fall back on the ridiculous argument you used. But, because he said "the conservatives," the claim cannot be reasonably construed to refer to anything but the collective. And, it is impossible to reasonably to refute a claim about THE conservatives by citing A conservative.

Gunther		2012-04-09 11:20:43 AM

sprawl15: 'Shot down'? I'll offer you the same question: what fact have you presented that 'shoots down' the idea that Heston marched for civil rights?

Nobody in this thread has argued against that. This argument has always been about whether or not the right was pro-civil rights. This tactic you keep trying (where you pretend the argument has been about something completely different) is pathetic.

sprawl15: Gunther: You don't want to admit the obvious and proven fact that it was the left in America that fought for civil rights and it was the right that was opposed.
Clearly, a bastion of rational, non-assholish behavior with nothing but the best of intentions.

You've repeatedly attacked anyone who responds to you no matter how polite their response, and you're upset I made such a comparatively mild post? Grow up.

sprawl15		2012-04-09 11:20:50 AM

X-boxershorts: sprawl15: X-boxershorts: did not negotiate in good faith and always assumed the very worst in motives about their opponents, even when no evidence existed regarding ulterior motives.

Sounds familiar.

Sure does. Sounds like the GoP of today that has done everything it possibly could as the party out of power, to sabotage this president during a genuine international economic crisis.

Well, duh. The neocons hit a derp aquifer sometime around September 12, 2001.

skullkrusher		2012-04-09 11:22:42 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: ginandbacon: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.

Richard "Captain EPA" Nixon?
I think the country would take Nixon in a heartbeat over the current crop of GO,Please

Yep. Kennedy was more liberal than Nixon was in 1960.

The politics of individuals and groups change over time. What a shock.

Nixon engineered the blatantly racist and horrific drug policy. But yes, I would probably take him over what the GOP is offering up today. I would take any Dem from almost any era over him, though.

well, our drug policy IS horrific but it is not racist. It's application DOES impact minorities much more negatively than it does white people but disparate impact is not evidence of racism.

The recently revised disparity in the sentences required for crack trafficking and cocaine trafficking was pretty blatantly racist.

doesn't make the national policy any more or less racist. Besides, crack is whack. Coke is fun.

X-boxershorts		2012-04-09 11:24:19 AM

sprawl15: X-boxershorts: sprawl15: X-boxershorts: did not negotiate in good faith and always assumed the very worst in motives about their opponents, even when no evidence existed regarding ulterior motives.

Sounds familiar.

Sure does. Sounds like the GoP of today that has done everything it possibly could as the party out of power, to sabotage this president during a genuine international economic crisis.

Well, duh. The neocons hit a derp aquifer sometime around September 12, 2001.

I would say the DERP really hit the fan in January 1981.

quizzical		2012-04-09 11:25:34 AM

LarryDan43: I just like having my faiths confirmed. Whether it be at church by my minister or at home by my news channel, I just feel better knowing Im right and others are wrong.

This would be a perfect quote from one of the Onion's "American Voices" characters.

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-04-09 11:25:45 AM

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: OK, I missed the fact that your post about Charleton Heston marching for Civil rights had no relationship with anything else in the thread, and that it certainly did not relate to the post you were responding to about conservative sup[port for Civil Rights movement.

It was an example of a person regarded as a conservative who marched for civil rights. Maybe you should examine your own motivations and find why this simple assertion makes you so angry? You're at the point of declaring it a non-sequitor when it followed a statement mocking the concept of conservatives supporting civil rights. You're like a parody of your usually incoherent self. It's like someone tied down whidbey and force fed him crazy pills.

I pointed out that regarding him as a conservative at the time of the act is inaccurate. As such your use of him as an example was ignorant at best, dishonest at worst. That pisses you off. Too bad.

coeyagi		2012-04-09 11:26:17 AM

Two words: 700 club.

cdn.front.moveon.org

Ctrl-Alt-Del		2012-04-09 11:29:50 AM

ginandbacon: You are missing my point. If we are going to go around attacking Fox viewers as uniformed and thus somehow illegitimate,

"Illegitiate" is not something I've said, or even implied. It's also a very loaded word to use - I would point out that their opinions of certain factual matters are WRONG, not illegitimate. Most importantly, though, these studies don't show that Fox viewers are uninformed, but that they are misinformed. It's an important distiction.

You say in one breath that we shouldn't "[attack] Fox viewers as uniformed and thus somehow illegitimate", and in the next you tell us that "[you] don't believe that bigots, climate denies, and religious fanatics deserve a patient ear". Why is that? Is it because their opinions on those matters are somehow illegitimate? I find it disconcerting that you're willing to unflinchingly dismiss the worst right-wing lies, but are so hesitant to discuss what is an important tool in the creation and maintenance of those lies among that group - Fox News.

This article is not an attack on Fox viewers, it's an attack on Fox News.

ginandbacon: My point is that it's a stupid conversation to be having.

The largest, most popular cable news channel in the country is putting out a nonstop stream of information that is actively misinforming tens of millions of Americans about verifiable factual matters (like climate change, for example) to support the ideological viewpoint of its owners, and you think that pointing this out is a stupid conversation? I think you're being short sighted, but whatever. you go back to the important work of policing the positions of progressives.

Let's stick to facts and not try to denigrate each other.

That Fox News viewers are consistently more misinformed, and have been for years now, is a fact. And wanting to discuss why they are seems like a valuable and important discussion to have, at least to me.

Let me ask you a question. If you came across several well researched, well documented studies that demonstrated that all of the children in your local school who had Mrs. Murdoch as their teacher were consistently being taught WRONG "facts" in multiple important subjects, what would your reaction be?

A) I think we can all agree that there are plenty of kids getting bad grades in lots of teacher's classes
B) Pointing this out is just going to force her defenders to deliberately misuse some statistics in a racist or sexist manner, and do we really want that?
C) This is a stupid discussion. Let's stick to facts and stop denigrating these kids
D) That's disturbing. Let's see if we can figure out why it's happening, what harm it is causing, and what we can do to fix this problem.

born_yesterday		2012-04-09 11:30:34 AM

NeverDrunk23: Ctrl-Alt-Del: ginandbacon: Sorry, I could have been clearer here. I meant to say that the majority of people in this country are misinformed on many issues. Fox viewers and conservatives don't have a monopoly on ignorance.

True, but the entire point of this article is that while many people, maybe even the majority of people, in this country are misinformed, people who watch Fox News are consistently the MOST misinformed. Your entire argument seems to take the following form:

Article : The majority of the worlds water is held in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
You: Yeah, but I think we can all agree that there are lots of bodies of water that hold a lot of water.

Yeah, it's true, but it doesn't really do anything to address the point under discussion except to distract from it

You could say both sides are bad, vote Atlantic.

WHY DOES THE GULF STREAM HATE AMERICA!!?

ginandbacon		2012-04-09 11:31:22 AM

skullkrusher: ginandbacon: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.

Richard "Captain EPA" Nixon?
I think the country would take Nixon in a heartbeat over the current crop of GO,Please

Yep. Kennedy was more liberal than Nixon was in 1960.

The politics of individuals and groups change over time. What a shock.

Nixon engineered the blatantly racist and horrific drug policy. But yes, I would probably take him over what the GOP is offering up today. I would take any Dem from almost any era over him, though.

well, our drug policy IS horrific but it is not racist. It's application DOES impact minorities much more negatively than it does white people but disparate impact is not evidence of racism.

Nixon's own words about his drug policy belie that fact.

Displayed 50 of 329 comments