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.

(AlterNet)   "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) divider line 49
    More: Interesting, Fox News, dictators, beliefs, PolitiFact  
•       •       •

2675 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Apr 2012 at 9:03 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-04-09 09:26:47 AM
10 votes:
Over several years of debating right wingers, I've come to a number of inescapable conclusions about them. One of the biggest being they absolutely do NOT take kindly to having their beliefs questioned or put into any environment of doubt. They cling to them feverishly as a child clings to a teddy bear, unwilling to even consider that what they believe could be wrong. They do not go in search of information to find "the real story" about a particular issue, they seek out only that which which reaffirms what they already think they know. When presented with opposing viewpoints or actual facts that disprove what they believe, they react with out-of-hand rejection, attempts to destroy the air of legitimacy of the source of the information, blame shifting, and flat out "making things up" to avoid having to admit what they think they know is complete bullshiat.

Hence, the popular invoking of such boogeymen as "the lamestream lefty Soros funded media" and the ever population "Satan did it!" defenses.

Personally, I think the American right has lost their collective marbles. They've become pawns of a moneyed hierarchy that, through careful research, psychological profiling and strategically worded "dog whistle" talking points, have convinced close to half the population of the country that the other half is the "enemy" and that to combat them they must follow the path laid out for them by organization like Fox while being totally oblivious that they are ultimately going against their own best interests.

They seem to be oblivious also to the fact that Fox News is actually a foreign owned media conglomerate who have no loyalty or allegiance to the United States except as a source of income. It means nothing to them to sow the seeds of division amongst out population as long as it means money in the bank. Unfortunately, those who have fallen under their spell are of a sub-standard enough intellect that this is totally lost on all of them.

(sigh)
2012-04-09 09:34:25 AM
4 votes:
This is a very good source of information on the inescapable connection between Authoritarianism and Republican Conservatism.

3.bp.blogspot.com

From the book...
"Conservatives without conscience do not have horns and tails; if they did they would be easier to identify. Many of them can be quite pleasant, but at heart they are tough, cold-blooded, ruthless authoritarians. They are limited in their ability to see the world from any point of view other than there own, and they are narrow in their outlook. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are prototypical conservative leaders without conscience.

Right-wing authoritarians employ a number of psychological tricks and defences that enable them to act fairly beastly, all the while thinking they are 'the good people'. To begin with they have relatively little self-understanding. For instance, they do not realize they are more prejudiced and hostile than most people. In fact, they do not realize any of the many undesirable things that research has discovered about them. Second, right-wing authoritarians have very compartmentalized minds, and they can just pull off a Scarlett O'Hara ("I'm not going to think about it!') whenever they want.

Probably about 20 to 25 percent of the adult American population is so right-wing authoritarian, so scared, so self-righteous, so ill-informed, and so dogmatic that nothing you can say or do will change their minds. They would march America into a dictatorship and probably feel that things had improved as a result. The problem is that these authoritarian followers are much more active than the rest of the country. They have the mentality of 'old time religion' on a crusade, and they generously give money, time and effort to the cause. They proselytize; they lick stamps; they put pressure on loved ones; and they revel in being loyal to a cohesive group of like thinkers. And they are so submissive to their leaders that they will believe and do virtually anything they are told. They are not going to let up and they are not going to go away"
2012-04-09 10:40:09 AM
3 votes:

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.
2012-04-09 10:16:02 AM
3 votes:
While I agree with Mooney's point that Fox viewers are the most uninformed and watch Fox so their beliefs won't be challenged (the epistemic bubble argument), he blames this all on them being Authoritarians without really defining the term in some independent way (it seems to be a synonym for conservative) and explaining how such a psychological makup leads one to watching Fox news.

The best explanation I have found is in Corey Robin's "The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin". Robin's point is that conservatives embrace strong social hierarchies where everybody knows their place within the hierarchy. A person in the middle is expected to respect, obey, and believe their betters (and their Authority) with little questioning while receiving respect etc. from those below them. This is why racism is so important for those conservatives near the bottom of the hierarchy - it lets them convince themselves that at least they are superior to Negros, Mexicans, etc., and it makes them really mad when the very bottom won't accept their position to the and can lead to efforts to keep them in their place.

A strongly hierarchical society is somewhat adaptive because it can run smoothly and gives something to everybody not at the very bottom. While those at the bottom might not like the setup they are generally stripped of any power that could be used to change the setup.
2012-04-09 10:11:55 AM
3 votes:

coeyagi: ginandbacon: I think it's fair to say that anyone, on either side of the spectrum, who gets the majority of their news from the boob tube or from a select handful of online sources, is going to be decidedly limited in their knowledge base and ability to suss out the truths on any given issue.

That said. It does seem like people on the left are a lot more active in checking multiple sources and looking for challenges to a particular story.

Not always, but in general.

I think it's fair to say that 7 studies prove that Fox News viewers are less informed, but thanks for trying to cast doubt with your general "feelings" on the matter. Very Fauxian.


Do you really not think that there aren't people on the left who aren't guilty of seeking out media that do nothing to challenge their preconceived notions?

Of course Fox viewers are less informed than other TV news consumers, but so are the majority of people in this country regardless of political affiliation or where they end up looking for information.

It's not a winning strategy to gloat about the failings on one side while ignoring the failings on our own. Being better than your average Fox viewer isn't good enough. In fact, there are numerous polls that show that my cohort (women voters) are among the least informed in this country. Should I take pleasure in the fact that at least they vote D?

I'd like to see better from all of us.
2012-04-09 09:45:19 AM
3 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: As long as the libs have MSNBC to spew their hate of the Right, they really have no right to fling barbs at Fox.

Nor do conservatives have a right to fling barbs at MSNBC.

In the end it's a wash. And I'm okay with that.


"Saddened and mystified by" is not the same as "hate of." You could probably make a case that most news outlets, whether corporate or not, follow some larger narrative that's shaped by the worldviews of the people who produce & run it. That's not a sin; that's a reasonable thing to expect from a human institution. The difference is that Fox has no apparent journalistic integrity or ethic to keep its narrative in check. As others have said above, Fox is a propaganda outlet serving only one purpose: to keep its viewership fearful, compliant, and misinformed.

Comparing Fox and any other US media outlet isn't really apt. If CNN or MSNBC are hamburgers from different lousy fast-food joints, Fox is a hamburger made of Play-Doh.
2012-04-09 10:26:38 AM
2 votes:

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
2012-04-09 10:25:09 AM
2 votes:

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.
2012-04-09 09:58:22 AM
2 votes:

Lochsteppe: AverageAmericanGuy: As long as the libs have MSNBC to spew their hate of the Right, they really have no right to fling barbs at Fox.

Nor do conservatives have a right to fling barbs at MSNBC.

In the end it's a wash. And I'm okay with that.

"Saddened and mystified by" is not the same as "hate of." You could probably make a case that most news outlets, whether corporate or not, follow some larger narrative that's shaped by the worldviews of the people who produce & run it. That's not a sin; that's a reasonable thing to expect from a human institution. The difference is that Fox has no apparent journalistic integrity or ethic to keep its narrative in check. As others have said above, Fox is a propaganda outlet serving only one purpose: to keep its viewership fearful, compliant, and misinformed.

Comparing Fox and any other US media outlet isn't really apt. If CNN or MSNBC are hamburgers from different lousy fast-food joints, Fox is a hamburger made of Play-Doh.


The other main differences is that MSNBC commentators take responsibility for what they say and if they report something that is incorrect, they take steps to correct and acknowledge the error.

Fox uses these vague unattributed "quotes" to introduce the propaganda into the discussion without having to accept any direct connection or claim of origination to the statement. They say things like "People are saying that Barack Obama farks chickens"...and then they go around to their various "panelists" who don't commit to a viewpoint on it one way or the other, saying things like "well, it's doubtful..but who really knows..". This way they've managed to wiggle out of direct responsibility for such an irresponsible statement but they've still managed to plant the seed of suggestion into their pinheaded viewers consciousness. Bubba Knuckledragger watching it thinks.."Hmm..people are saying Obama farks chickens"...but lacks the critical thinking skills to dismiss it as obviously bullshiat, and since he already hates Obama, the cycle is permitted to continue.

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.
2012-04-09 09:48:29 AM
2 votes:

Gunther: zappaisfrank: Over several years of debating right wingers, I've come to a number of inescapable conclusions about them. One of the biggest being they absolutely do NOT take kindly to having their beliefs questioned or put into any environment of doubt. They cling to them feverishly as a child clings to a teddy bear, unwilling to even consider that what they believe could be wrong.

To be fair, the same could be said of many people who fall on the opposite side of the political spectrum. The modern American right-wing is distinguished by degree rather than by kind - many of the beliefs they cling fiercely to aren't just wrong, they're obviously, provably, wrong. Like the recent Talking Point I've seen bandied about the internet that it was the conservatives who fought for civil rights. Or that the current tax rate is particularly high, by historical standards.


The funniest one I've heard recently were how the "War On Women" is actually being waged by the Democrats, yet when you ask a rightie for just one example of Democratic sponsored legislation aimed at the reproductive rights of women, they refuse to answer. That's what you get with those people when you attempt debate with them..they throw out a big stinking wad of verbal diarrhea, then when you ask them for specifics they run away like a child caught throwing rocks at windows. They're fond of blame shifting to Democrats to deflect from their own malfeasance. I love it when they start talking about Democrat racism from the 1800's, yet refuse to acknowledge things like the Southern Strategy. They're farking idiots.
2012-04-09 09:18:18 AM
2 votes:
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.

/speculation and confirmation bias are a powerful duo
2012-04-09 08:20:39 AM
2 votes:
I really don't know how anyone with a brain can think Fox News is a quality source for news... And I really have no desire to have a political discussion with anyone who's sole source of information is Fox News.
2012-04-09 07:53:59 AM
2 votes:
farm4.static.flickr.com
2012-04-11 12:46:03 PM
1 votes:

tjfly: So much lib turdhurt that PMSNBC can't beat any of Fox News' show ratings. I think Maddow on prime time barely irks out Redeye that plays at 2 am.
Oh and 2 am on PMSNBC = snake oil infomercials.


It's far more likely that liberals choose not to rely on television as their primary source of news and analysis because due to time and production constraints, it tends to be a poor medium for discussing anything beyond the surface of an issue.

But nevermind that, carry on with your nonsense.
2012-04-09 01:52:47 PM
1 votes:

eraser8: sprawl15: There's no hope, considering there's people redefining 'conservative' and 'liberal' to justify their irrational outrage over the statement that Charlton Heston was a conservative who marched for civil rights.

1) No one has redefined the terms conservative and liberal.

2) No is "outraged" that you made a statement that was not only unsupported but one that was in defense of an argument that was logically untenable. Or, at least, I wasn't outraged.


Well when he marched for civil rights he also campaigned for Kennedy and Stephenson, opposed the Vietnam war and supported gun control legislation. So I'm guessing the outrage you sense is confusion. Do you really think he was a conservative at that time? You aren't just being disengenuous? And you're maybe a little embarassed at being so obvious about it? And that makes you defensive? Maybe?
2012-04-09 12:44:09 PM
1 votes:

ginandbacon: Fair enough, but why not also hold left-wing sources to that same standard? Are you okay with DKos, HuffPo, and other media on the progressive side?


Am I OK with them what? In general? On specific subjects? If you could find some studies that show that readers of those sites are consistently misinformed about certain subjects (like vaccinations, for example) then yes, I have a problem with that as well.

And what's your point if you are going to attack a source and pretend not to be attacking its consumers? It really is sort of a stupid conversation unless you believe there are real life consequences.

Tens of millions of Americans are being fed a nonstop stream of lies, distortions and misinformation about topics including global warming; abortion; birth control; trickle-dow economics; the effects of cutting taxes on the rich; the attitudes and actions of poor people, minorities, and progressives. And you're doubtful that there are "real world consequences"?

"if you are going to attack a source and pretend not to be attacking its consumers?"

I'll point out that not only did you not answer the question I asked (in good faith) , but if you apply this logic here to that situation (a teacher misinforming students) the results are pretty astounding. To quote somebody you may have heard of: "If you don't see the difference here, I doubt we can have a rational discussion on this"

ginandbacon: It is one of the fastest shrinking outlets for information in this country. Don't exaggerate its influence, you distort the discussion.


I would offer the same advice, don't minimize its influence, you distort the conversation. It may be shrinking, but it still reaches millions of dedicated viewers, and they are typically in a demographic that is more likely to vote than any other. Also recall that FNC is far from the only property owned by the Murdoch empire. Have you taken a look at the Wall Street Journal recently?

ginandbacon: Are you suggesting that they are then more qualified to vote?


Seriously. Stop this crap. this is the second time that you've headed down this path. The fact that you keep trying to paint this as some kind of attempt at delegitimizing or disenfranchising or dehumanizing these people is little more than a strawman argument - nobody in this discussion is arguing that*, and your attempts to claim we are is not only dishonest, it's pretty goddamned annoying.

Not every discussion of statistically valid facts about certain groups of people is an attempt to marginalize that group, regardless of your experience with sexists and racists who want to discuss crime rates and test score disparities and use those facts to justify their assumptions about women or blacks based on their unsupported ideas about the causes for those differences or the likely consequences of those disparities.

ginandbacon: If you don't see the difference here, I doubt we can have a rational discussion on this, or likely, any other topic.


The difference between which and what? The difference between attempting to honestly discuss the causes and consequences of a rather disturbing fact and the assumption that not only is it not really important, but that even the mere act of discussing it is little more than an attempt to vilify and oppress the people it applies to? I can see the difference quite clearly. Can you?
2012-04-09 12:20:09 PM
1 votes:

sprawl15: eraser8: That leaves aside the fundamentally untenable logic you used in countering Gunther's post.

This is where you're farking up. You're imposing this whole argumentative tone onto something that had no argumentative tone. You're assuming it was a combative counter, when it was just kind of a "well, there's this guy".

eraser8: At no time did Gunther claim "no self-identified conservative ever marched for civil rights." He made a statement about conservatives as a collective.

And his statement was wrong. Not just because of a single, small example, but because of broad movements in both parties. As I explained to you already, and you dismissed as irrelevant.
Gunther: See, this is exactly the sort of Talking Point bullshiat I'm talking about. 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. So you're focusing on ONE example of a conservative who fought for civil rights as though that one counter-example disproves history.
His history is just as revisionist as the people who claim the right were the only ones fighting for civil rights. I intended a discussion instead of an argument, but apparently the butthurt must flow.


You know who definately did not march for civil rights? Dead people. But wait Charleston Heston is a notable dead person and he marched for civil rights, therefore dead people did march for civil rights.

This is really how dumb you sound.
2012-04-09 12:10:06 PM
1 votes:

RolandGunner: It's a wonder little star chamber the Democrats have constructed for themselves. They fault conservatives for watching Fox News because it confirms all their beliefs... and then they don't watch Fox news because it doesn't confirm theirs.


Nope. People are adverse to watching Fox because it makes up lies and persists with them even when they have easily been shown to be lies.

Many people seem to have a need to find sources that can be just believed because they are a trusted Authority without any need to check out their explanations. Conservatives often take this to the extreme that anything one of their Authorities says is true must be so. See my comment earlier in this thread about the conservative embrace of a strong social hierarchy. Conservatives are wired for unquestionable authority while liberals at least allow questions. Three examples of strong social hierarchies are the military, a business, and a religion. The job of a soldier, worker. or lay person is to follow orders and and accept beliefs and not question them. Conservatives tend to think that all of society should be run as the military or a business or a religion.
2012-04-09 12:00:51 PM
1 votes:

sprawl15: This was the time of the Southern Strategy, where people who were against integration because it was Federally forced (like Buckley) teamed up with people who were against integration because they hated black people. This was a time when Adlai Stevenson, the Dem candidate, ran with a segregationist as his VP and opposed integration while William Barry Goldwater, who voted against the Civil Rights Act, was a member of the NAACP.


Not particularly relevant to the points I raised with you.

sprawl15: eraser8: Please point out to me EXACTLY where and when you reliably established Charlton Heston as a conservative AT THE TIME he was marching for civil rights.

I didn't. Nor did I ever assert that he was a conservative at the time. If he was or wasn't is irrelevant.


Actually, to be responsive to the statement, it is entirely relevant. And, if you are unable to establish the fact of Heston's conservatism at the time of the protests, your statement is entirely unresponsive.

That leaves aside the fundamentally untenable logic you used in countering Gunther's post. You simply cannot reasonably undermine a claim about a collective by citing an individual member of that collective.

sprawl15: It certainly was related. See above; people tend to paint the world into "us" and "them" and flip shiat when grey areas are revealed.


Mentioning exceptions to a rule doesn't undermine the general rule. At no time did Gunther claim "no self-identified conservative ever marched for civil rights." He made a statement about conservatives as a collective. And, he was right. Your reply was simply not responsive to his claim and, in fact, was really quite silly.
2012-04-09 11:56:53 AM
1 votes:

RolandGunner: Ctrl-Alt-Del: 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


Any you know this because MSNBC, Comedy Central and Media Matters tells you it is so.


Thank you for confirming what the rest of us see whenever attempting to discuss this very subject with Conservatives...nothing factual, simply offhand dismissals of "places that say mean things about Conservatives", the fact that the things they say are true be damned.

/"Soros" boogeyman in 5..4..3...
2012-04-09 11:56:00 AM
1 votes:
This is what's wrong with the folks TFA is talking about, and the Republican party in general. A good read if you haven't read it before. I am re-reading it today after having spent time with my family and being reminded about the tickets to the crazy train they've bought.
2012-04-09 11:40:44 AM
1 votes:

sprawl15: eraser8: 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.

"You basically asserted" = "I just made up this narrative". Or, more accurately, "I like PFQ's narrative, so I'm going to imagine it as well."


If I'm mistaken, I apologize.

Please point out to me EXACTLY where and when you reliably established Charlton Heston as a conservative AT THE TIME he was marching for civil rights.

sprawl15: Take a step back. What do you think was my purpose of saying that Heston marched for civil rights?


Honestly, I have no idea why you did it. That's why I asked in the first place. And, I asked because your statement was completely unresponsive to the post you were replying to.

sprawl15: sprawl15: A notable conservative that fought for civil rights was Charlton Heston.
That's it. A simple statement of fact.


It's certainly a simple statement; but, it isn't a simple statement of fact because you haven't established that Charlton Heston was a conservative at the time of his protests. Besides, you weren't interested in making a simple statement of fact (unrelated as it was to Gunther's point). You claimed that "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."

Leaving aside for the fact that your logic is untenable, you weren't able to sustain your claim even if one accepts your (rather bizarre) logic.
2012-04-09 11:31:22 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-04-09 11:25:45 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-04-09 11:20:43 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-04-09 11:19:55 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-04-09 11:18:27 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-04-09 11:17:30 AM
1 votes:

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?
2012-04-09 11:16:55 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-04-09 11:05:18 AM
1 votes:
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."
2012-04-09 10:55:20 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-04-09 10:22:31 AM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: zappaisfrank: sprawl15: coeyagi: 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!"

Philip Francis Queeg: It also assumes the Heston's politics did not change over 40 years.

Two excellent examples of people talking out of their ass to justify their pre-determined opinion.

What people need to realize is that the "gun" question in the United States is pretty much settled, and the gun nuts won.

The occasional civilian massacre is just the price the REST of us have to pay...over and over again, apparently.

The fact that you used gun nuts proves your objectiveness.


The only thing it proves is that you fancy yourself some great all-knowing intellect who enjoys dropping cute little put downs in an extremely weak attempt to appear clever.

For the record, I own two guns myself. It is possible to be a gun owner without being a "gun nut", however to deny extreme elements exist within the gun culture (who full well deserve the label "nuts") and to deny that they are at the forefront of the "gun movement" is to have your head firmly placed betwixt your buttcheeks.
2012-04-09 10:22:16 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-04-09 10:12:22 AM
1 votes:

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.


See, this is exactly the sort of Talking Point bullshiat I'm talking about. 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. So you're focusing on ONE example of a conservative who fought for civil rights as though that one counter-example disproves history. It's equivalent to me posting an example of a pro-life left-winger (they do exist), and then saying "Aha! the claim that the left is pro-choice is a lie!".
2012-04-09 10:09:40 AM
1 votes:

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: It also assumes the Heston's politics did not change over 40 years.

Two excellent examples of people talking out of their ass to justify their pre-determined opinion.


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.
2012-04-09 09:55:43 AM
1 votes:

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
2012-04-09 09:53:25 AM
1 votes:
I think it's fair to say that anyone, on either side of the spectrum, who gets the majority of their news from the boob tube or from a select handful of online sources, is going to be decidedly limited in their knowledge base and ability to suss out the truths on any given issue.

That said. It does seem like people on the left are a lot more active in checking multiple sources and looking for challenges to a particular story.

Not always, but in general.
2012-04-09 09:39:08 AM
1 votes:

zappaisfrank: Over several years of debating right wingers, I've come to a number of inescapable conclusions about them. One of the biggest being they absolutely do NOT take kindly to having their beliefs questioned or put into any environment of doubt. They cling to them feverishly as a child clings to a teddy bear, unwilling to even consider that what they believe could be wrong.


To be fair, the same could be said of many people who fall on the opposite side of the political spectrum. The modern American right-wing is distinguished by degree rather than by kind - many of the beliefs they cling fiercely to aren't just wrong, they're obviously, provably, wrong. Like the recent Talking Point I've seen bandied about the internet that it was the conservatives who fought for civil rights. Or that the current tax rate is particularly high, by historical standards.
2012-04-09 09:28:21 AM
1 votes:

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?


The article was about authoritarians. It's nobody's fault if that appeals to republicans.
2012-04-09 09:25:13 AM
1 votes:
motherjones.com (new window)
2012-04-09 09:21:33 AM
1 votes:
The word you're looking for is jibe.
2012-04-09 09:20:44 AM
1 votes:

agr8guy182: Those big bad Republicans. Anyone who doesn't believe in what the left believes in is a Nazi, crazy, uneducated, hillbilly...


Facts?
2012-04-09 09:17:46 AM
1 votes:

Guidette Frankentits: CNN is guilty of being mindless too but they don't play a Libz Libz Libz Derp Derp Derp record 24/7


Both sides suck, but that doesn't mean they suck equally.
2012-04-09 09:17:08 AM
1 votes:
Those big bad Republicans. Anyone who doesn't believe in what the left believes in is a Nazi, crazy, uneducated, hillbilly...
2012-04-09 09:15:45 AM
1 votes:
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.
2012-04-09 09:14:44 AM
1 votes:

Headso: keylock71: I really don't know how anyone with a brain can think Fox News is a quality source for news... And I really have no desire to have a political discussion with anyone who's sole source of information is Fox News.

Oh yeah libtard, well I'll have you know I also get my news from breitbart, american thinker, WND, the washington times annnnd the NY Post! now who's not informed infromed?


FTFY.
2012-04-09 09:11:41 AM
1 votes:

keylock71: I really don't know how anyone with a brain can think Fox News is a quality source for news... And I really have no desire to have a political discussion with anyone who's sole source of information is Fox News.


Oh yeah libtard, well I'll have you know I also get my news from breitbart, american thinker, WND, the washington times annnnd the NY Post! now who's not informed?
2012-04-09 09:08:57 AM
1 votes:
CNN is guilty of being mindless too but they don't play a Libz Libz Libz Derp Derp Derp record 24/7
2012-04-09 08:14:38 AM
1 votes:
i37.tinypic.com
"no farking shiat."
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report