REPUBLICANS: Conservatives More confident; More likely to Listen and Read Opposing Viewpoints [Archive]

View Full Version : REPUBLICANS: Conservatives More confident; More likely to Listen and Read Opposing Viewpoints

redsox39

06-09-2009, 09:03 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090608/sc_livescience/peoplechoosenewsthatfitstheirviews

News readers gorge on media messages that fit their pre-existing views, rather than graze on a wider range of perspectives. In other words, they consume what they agree with, researchers say.

The finding comes out of a recent study which tracked how college students spent their time reading media articles on hot-button issues such as abortion (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/livescience/sc_livescience/storytext/peoplechoosenewsthatfitstheirviews/32292910/SIG=122vcffkh/*http://www.livescience.com/culture/090601-religion-abortion.html) or gun ownership.

Unsurprisingly, students gravitated toward articles that supported their views.

"The idea has been around for a very long time, but it has just never been proven," said Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick, a communications researcher at Ohio State University. "It's just considered textbook knowledge or lay common sense."

That preference for similar views may also influence hardcore political junkies who prefer to read blogs with strong political views, according to separate research.

However, researchers still don't know how individual uncertainty (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/livescience/sc_livescience/storytext/peoplechoosenewsthatfitstheirviews/32292910/SIG=11q39nuus/*http://www.livescience.com/culture/080825-flip-flop.html) about political views affects time spent reading one side or the other. And on the flipside, individuals most confident in their political stance may actually seek out opposing views to read.

News that fits your views

Previous studies have asked people about their news reading habits and broad political beliefs, such as liberal or conservative.

But the new Ohio State study took that a step further by observing how 156 college students spent five minutes reading online magazine articles on a computer. The computer recorded the time each student spent looking at pro and con articles about four issues that included abortion, gun ownership, health care and minimum wage.

"A survey isn't the greatest way to get hold of issues," Knobloch-Westerwick told LiveScience. "In my study, we just had people click on things so that we could watch unobtrusively."

As a result, she found that participants spent 36 percent more time reading articles that agreed with their point of view. They had a 58 percent chance of choosing articles that supported their views, as opposed to a 43 percent chance of choosing an article that challenged their view (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/livescience/sc_livescience/storytext/peoplechoosenewsthatfitstheirviews/32292910/SIG=1281i3a33/*http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060124_political_decisions.html).

Students also commonly spent time reading both sides on any given issue, according to the study, which is detailed in the June issue of the journal Communication Research. However, very few clicked just on articles that opposed their views.

How political junkies read

Only 5 percent of online news readers go to political blogs on a daily basis, according to a new book by a different researcher, yet many represent the most politically active (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/livescience/sc_livescience/storytext/peoplechoosenewsthatfitstheirviews/32292910/SIG=11u8b9221/*http://www.livescience.com/health/080226-politics-brain.html) consumers of the news.

Such readers may prefer blogs over mainstream media sources because they suspect bias in the latter, said Richard Davis, a political scientist at Brigham Young University in Utah.

"They're clearly disenchanted with traditional media," Davis said. "That's why they read blogs in the first place - in their view, they see blogs as more accurate."

Davis worked with several independent firms to conduct nationally representative public opinion surveys of both political blog readers and journalists for his book, "Typing Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2009). He also focused on seven of the top political blogs, which at the time included Daily Kos on the left and Michelle Malkin on the right.

Such political blogs are up front with their political views, and typically "echo" the news reported by traditional journalists while adding their own spin or analysis.
But among the hardcore political junkies, 30 percent told the survey that blogs are more accurate, whereas only 8 percent said traditional media was more accurate. About 40 percent gave equal marks to both.
This trust in blogs over traditional media does not carry over to general readers, Davis cautioned. Less frequent blog readers usually give equal weight to blogs and traditional media. And overall, general readers still put more faith in traditional media.
Conservatives buck the trend
Some findings from both researchers suggest that individual confidence and certainty play a role in what people choose to read.
People with stronger party affiliation, conservative political views (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/livescience/sc_livescience/storytext/peoplechoosenewsthatfitstheirviews/32292910/SIG=1254r1294/*http://www.livescience.com/culture/090604-conservative-disgust.html), and greater interest in politics proved more likely to click on articles with opposing views, according to the Ohio State study.
"It appears that people with these characteristics are more confident in their views and so they're more inclined to at least take a quick look at the counterarguments," Knobloch-Westerwick noted.
The Brigham Young University survey found that journalists also tended to read liberal blogs - perhaps a reflection of journalists' political beliefs, although even conservatives said liberal blogs were often better-written, Davis pointed out.
Among the political blog readers, a similar trend emerged in which "liberals read almost exclusively liberal blogs, but conservatives tend to read both," Davis said.
Davis offered another possible explanation for this trend among blog readers. Conservative views dominate talk radio, and so conservatives may feel more satisfied by that outlet and are willing to check out opposing views on blogs.
By contrast, liberal views dominate the blogosphere, but are scant on talk radio.
Winning hearts and minds ... or not
The big question that remains is whether consuming all this news affects or changes people's views, or simply hardens original beliefs.
Experts have fretted for a while about how people tend to read only what agrees with them. But current research suggests that it's amazing that people ever change their views, Knobloch-Westerwick said.
Some researchers have even begun examining how political leanings are rooted in biology (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/livescience/sc_livescience/storytext/peoplechoosenewsthatfitstheirviews/32292910/SIG=1208ho30g/*http://www.livescience.com/culture/080918-political-views.html), and the combined influences of genetics (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/livescience/sc_livescience/storytext/peoplechoosenewsthatfitstheirviews/32292910/SIG=12894af4h/*http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070524_ideological_leaning.html) or life experiences. A separate recent study suggests that men with more daughters (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/livescience/sc_livescience/storytext/peoplechoosenewsthatfitstheirviews/32292910/SIG=130b88rqj/*http://www.livescience.com/culture/etc/090525-men-with-more-daughters-become-more-liberal.html) are more likely to take a liberal point of view, while women who have more sons may lean more conservative.
Still, having hardened political views bolstered by media messages might not represent all bad news for a democratic society.
"People who spend more time with messages that bolster their views are more likely to engage in political action, something that's very desirable from a democratic point of view," Knobloch-Westerwick said.

Okie Medicvet

06-09-2009, 09:57 AM

conservatives are now more liberally minded than liberals? Yah, right, ohhhhkaaayyy.

Das Kahlua

06-09-2009, 10:09 AM

conservatives are now more liberally minded than liberals? Yah, right, ohhhhkaaayyy.

It's not a question of liberally minded, this article is claiming that conservatives are more comfortable in their beliefs, so they don't mind reading opposing viewpoints whereas liberals must remain in their ideological bubble, so to speak.

I would take this even a step further. Most conservatives I know base their political beliefs on a foundation of law or reason (i.e., I'm opposed to Obama tax increases because they're unconstitutional), while most liberals I know base their beliefs on a foundation of emotion (i.e., We should raise taxes because the rich have more than they need and poor people are starving). When you base a belief on law, you don't mind reading opposing viewpoints because an intellectual discussion and disagreement is always healthy, but if your beliefs are only based on emotion, hearing someone disagree is only going to fire up those emotional undercurrents and make you angry.

Pharon

06-09-2009, 10:13 AM

Most conservatives I know base their political beliefs on a foundation of law or reason (i.e., I'm opposed to Obama tax increases because they're unconstitutional), while most liberals I know base their beliefs on a foundation of emotion (i.e., We should raise taxes because the rich have more than they need and poor people are starving).
Sure, except when you're talking about torture, illegal detaining of foreigners, abortion, gun control laws, etc.

Other than that, I totally agree with you.

C'mon -- you're smarter than this... hypocrisy is ABOUND on both sides of the spectrum here. And the older I get, the more equal I'm seeing hypocrisy on both sides. This whole idea that "conservatives base their arguments on reason and logic" is a bunch of bullshit.

redsox39

06-09-2009, 10:18 AM

Remember, science is only "Real" science when the left says it is.

Evolution, stem cells, etc, is real science. (I agree)

Global warming being proven false, Saying liberals have the logic of a pregnant woman, etc, is shitty science. (I disagree)

redsox39

06-09-2009, 10:21 AM

Sure, except when you're talking about torture, illegal detaining of foreigners, abortion, gun control laws, etc.

Other than that, I totally agree with you.

C'mon -- you're smarter than this... hypocrisy is ABOUND on both sides of the spectrum here. And the older I get, the more equal I'm seeing hypocrisy on both sides. This whole idea that "conservatives base their arguments on reason and logic" is a bunch of bullshit.
I am pretty sure the conservatives are very constitutional when it comes to guns.

And I am not sure that the detaining of Foreigners is addressed in the Constitution...

BIG PIZZLE

06-09-2009, 10:28 AM

This is because god is on the side of conservatives.

redsox39

06-09-2009, 10:29 AM

This is because god is on the side of conservatives.

Well of course! And Israel!

Pharon

06-09-2009, 10:40 AM

I am pretty sure the conservatives are very constitutional when it comes to guns.
Not when they call it an individual right not regulable by the states.

And I am not sure that the detaining of Foreigners is addressed in the Constitution...
It is. In the Bill of Rights. The term "citizens" is not used. Rights of "persons" is immaterial of citizenship status.

redsox39

06-09-2009, 10:44 AM

Not when they call it an individual right not regulable by the states.

It is. In the Bill of Rights. The term "citizens" is not used. Rights of "persons" is immaterial of citizenship status.

But they are Foriegners!!! They aren't Persons!

(just in case, I am kidding assholes)

Okie Medicvet

06-09-2009, 10:46 AM

It's not a question of liberally minded, this article is claiming that conservatives are more comfortable in their beliefs, so they don't mind reading opposing viewpoints whereas liberals must remain in their ideological bubble, so to speak.

I would take this even a step further. Most conservatives I know base their political beliefs on a foundation of law or reason (i.e., I'm opposed to Obama tax increases because they're unconstitutional), while most liberals I know base their beliefs on a foundation of emotion (i.e., We should raise taxes because the rich have more than they need and poor people are starving). When you base a belief on law, you don't mind reading opposing viewpoints because an intellectual discussion and disagreement is always healthy, but if your beliefs are only based on emotion, hearing someone disagree is only going to fire up those emotional undercurrents and make you angry.

You are absolutely right on that, and I won't deny it at all. Since I do function on a more emotional than logical level at times (although I do try and catch myself when doing that), I can no longer watch most of fox news since I will catch myself trying to scream shit at Hannity and O'Reilly on the tv, and that isn't really good for my blood pressure to get all worked up like that. ;)

Yet, I do want to know more information and not be kept in the dark, so online I will go to a wide variety of websites and news info sources to have an idea on where certain ideas of thinking are at and then to try and sift through the news and ocassionally blogs to gather up the little nuggets of truths. So while I will read opposing views, I really don't want to 'hear' or 'see' them, and I end up using a more 'user friendly' medium such as the big wide world on the internet. That way it is easier for me to adapt and interpret things differently.

I have had varied opinions in the past that upon further reflection and study I have altered; I don't think it is a good thing to be so stuck in some modes of thinking that you close yourself off to differing opinions and/or facts. Yet, that doesn't mean that I don't think my opinions right now aren't valid, because they are...they just aren't static.

redsox39

06-09-2009, 10:47 AM

So...do you think any of the Liberal leaning folks on here actually read the story? lol

And shit, GMF proves this study.

I don't come here for the hard core conservative slant, lol.

BIG PIZZLE

06-09-2009, 11:06 AM

I guess these guys werent surveyed.

http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?t=20953

redsox39

06-09-2009, 11:18 AM

I guess these guys werent surveyed.

http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?t=20953

I am not really sure if "discipline" is a conservative value, but we'll take take it.

I would also like to think that "being a fucking pussy" is not really a Liberal value, but if you insist.

I just think the "Wussification" took hold in the schools. And we have to get back to hard basics to fix it.

No more "Red pens hurt feelings" and "No grades below a 50% because it hurts their self-esteem" crap.

BIG PIZZLE

06-09-2009, 11:37 AM

"We are looking for hard working people who believe in free market capitalism. . . . Multicultural specialists, ultra liberal zealots and college-tainted oppression liberators need not apply."Nice try buddy. You know, it would look better on you if you didnt try so hard.

redsox39

06-09-2009, 11:40 AM

Nice try buddy. You know, it would look better on you if you didnt try so hard.

Read your own quote: "Ultra Liberal Zealots".

It would look better if you could read and comprehend.

BIG PIZZLE

06-09-2009, 11:54 AM

redsox39

06-09-2009, 12:03 PM

It would be better if you understood english. But anyways, your symantics dont seem very confident plus you're either not really considering my viewpoint or you're just too stupid to understand what I'm saying. Either way, you lose.

No I understand what you are saying. You are saying "Look! here is a school that teaches discipline and is run by Free Market capitalist who hates far left wing zealots who coddle kids and make failing seem ok, so this proves that the study is wrong! LOOK-it LOOK-it!"

I got it, I have a 4 year old at home.

I am just discounting your point because it makes no sense.

BIG PIZZLE

06-09-2009, 12:55 PM

redsox39

06-09-2009, 01:11 PM

Other than it presents a scenario that directly contradicts your survey: "conservatives" who dont seem very likely to "listen and read opposing viewpoints". Maybe your 4 y/o should post instead of you.

Not listening, and AGREEING are 2 totally different things. Obviously, one does not have to look far for failed Leftist policies in our schools.

They looked, they listened, they found fault and did it the right way.

It didn't say "conservatives are more likely to agree with counter-point material", it said they are more secure in their political beliefs and have no problem reading and understanding opposing viewpoints.

Once again, you are having this debate with the emotional level of Okie.

Reading and Listening are not the same as Agreeing.

So once again, I ask, WTF does that post have to do with anything?

BIG PIZZLE

06-09-2009, 01:18 PM

redsox39

06-09-2009, 01:22 PM

Soup Nazi

06-09-2009, 01:31 PM

Any time the test subjects know they are being observed (Hawthorne Effect, anyone?), it skews the results heavily. Not that I am saying the results wouldn't be the same if they were unaware, I am just saying it is hard for me to take the study seriously in this case. These students are in a college atmosphere where it is more popular to be liberal than conservative, so when being observed would it not be logical to assume conservatives may want to appear to be more liberal than they are, even if it is anonymous?

redsox39

06-09-2009, 01:44 PM

Soup Nazi

06-09-2009, 01:56 PM

What am I missing hotshot? 156 college students were involved in a study, they knew they were being observed. How does the Hawthorne effect not come into play in that situation? Just because someone is not standing behind them looking over a shoulder does not mean the Hawthorne effect is irrelevant.

BIG PIZZLE

06-09-2009, 02:04 PM

And your point is? Obviously, these guys are in education. That means they have had no choice but to read and understand those policies. They choose not to have them be a part of their school, and holy shit, the innercities kids can do good!

Once again, it has nothing to do with the study, that was focused on adults who are politically motivated and what they like to read.

But keep spinning it there, I am sure someone who didn't read the study is following your logic.

Here's my logic, retard. You obviously posted this article to show that conservatives are so much more fair and open minded than those on the left. So I referenced an article that gave you a ragign hardon that shows conservatives being childishly close-minded. SO you said that the schools are talking about "Ultra Liberal Zealots", implying this they seem to have the inside track on liberal catagorization and these "Ultra Liberal Zealots" are so beyond the scope of reason that they cannot even be considered, completely missing my point about how childish and close minded your ideal school seems. Then you said "it said they are more secure in their political beliefs and have no problem reading and understanding opposing viewpoints" I posted the quote to the story again, hoping that you were smart enough to see that they dont seem too eager to read or understand opposing viewpoints. Then you called me Okie. You clearly cant see the forest from the trees and there's no point in trying to make you understand even the slightest abstraction. You are a retard, you deal in black and white, you dismiss the things you cannot comprehend as unaplicable when in reality you simply dont understand. I would explain to you how this is ironic in light of the fact that you posted both this thread and the thread I referenced but it would be lost on your tiny neanderthal brain.

BIG PIZZLE

06-09-2009, 02:06 PM

What does a forest have to do with any of this? My 4 y/o draws forests! Yay!

redsox39

06-09-2009, 02:11 PM

Here's my logic, retard. You obviously posted this article to show that conservatives are so much more fair and open minded than those on the left. So I referenced an article that gave you a ragign hardon that shows conservatives being childishly close-minded. SO you said that the schools are talking about "Ultra Liberal Zealots", implying this they seem to have the inside track on liberal catagorization and these "Ultra Liberal Zealots" are so beyond the scope of reason that they cannot even be considered, completely missing my point about how childish and close minded your ideal school seems. Then you said "it said they are more secure in their political beliefs and have no problem reading and understanding opposing viewpoints" I posted the quote to the story again, hoping that you were smart enough to see that they dont seem too eager to read or understand opposing viewpoints. Then you called me Okie. You clearly cant see the forest from the trees and there's no point in trying to make you understand even the slightest abstraction. You are a retard, you deal in black and white, you dismiss the things you cannot comprehend as unaplicable when in reality you simply dont understand. I would explain to you how this is ironic in light of the fact that you posted both this thread and the thread I referenced but it would be lost on your tiny neanderthal brain.

Once again, nowhere in that article or study did it say that conservatives are more openminded. It says they are confident in their beliefs enough to read opposing viewpoints, knowing they probably won't change their mind.

If anything, it says conservatives are close minded and are not going to change their beliefs.

Seriously, get the stick out of your ass.

You are the one who is correlating "reading" into "HOLY MIND BLOWING OPENESS BATMAN!!"

PS- the bigger you have to make your grey area (the not black/white parts) they more you have to twist your logic to fit itself.

BIG PIZZLE

06-09-2009, 02:32 PM

So the article claims that conservatives "are confident in their beliefs enough to read opposing viewpoints.." and you cant see how that would seem to suggest that the article is making a case that conservatives are more open minded? Wow. Have you any concept of how reading works beyond a 3rd grade level? Why did you post the article if all it says is "conservatives are close minded and are not going to change their beliefs" as you now claim?

Limp

06-09-2009, 02:34 PM

BIG PIZZLE

06-09-2009, 02:35 PM

Also, if you actually believed that the article is making a case that conservatives are close-minded then you shuold have agreed with me when I referenced the school article, instead you tried to rationalize about how they are different.

BIG PIZZLE

06-09-2009, 02:37 PM

You know what they say when you assume....

There's a difference between an assumption and a deduction but I wouldnt expect you to understand because you are a close-minded conservative and redsox agrees!

redsox39

06-09-2009, 02:41 PM

oh boy...this thread is dead...go argue about nothing with someone else. Sorry that I read the article for what it said and not what you "Think it really meant".

And the reason...fuck it. You are just wrong.

BIG PIZZLE

06-09-2009, 02:47 PM

Just so I can get it straight, if you had to choose, would you say that the article is making the case that conservatives are open-minded or is it making the case that conservatives are close-minded? Not that it's explicitly making either case, but assuming that you had to fit it into either catagory, which one woulod you choose?

Hanover Fist

06-09-2009, 04:23 PM

I like to listen and read opposing viewpoints just so I can tell them how wrong they are.

mongo

06-09-2009, 04:23 PM

this forum is full of idiots.

Mustard

06-09-2009, 04:28 PM

In my close minded liberal viewpoint, Redsox is a fucking retard, and nothing will convince me otherwise.

mongo

06-09-2009, 04:30 PM

Taters army?

aj army.

Das Kahlua

06-09-2009, 04:50 PM

Not when they call it an individual right not regulable by the states.

And yet many liberals seem to believe that the 2nd Amendment is the only one that applies to the state as a whole and not the individuals, or that the entire Amendment is outdated and should be ignored.

Strangely, they never make that same argument about, say, the First, Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments.

It is. In the Bill of Rights. The term "citizens" is not used. Rights of "persons" is immaterial of citizenship status.

Yet the laws of America apply to the people within America, not people living in France, the UK or Afghanistan.

See, this type of debate is healthy. Sticking around people who agree with you, and calling anyone who disagrees stupid or racist isn't constructive or healthy. Are there people from both sides of the political spectrum guilty of this behavior? Absolutely, but liberals have become a victim of their own popularity--when Sean Penn or Alec Baldwin start yelling and screaming, they are celebrated as heroes, not treated like the ignorant assholes that they truly are.

Pharon

06-09-2009, 06:03 PM

And yet many liberals seem to believe that the 2nd Amendment is the only one that applies to the state as a whole and not the individuals, or that the entire Amendment is outdated and should be ignored.

Strangely, they never make that same argument about, say, the First, Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments.
That's because the latter three amendments have nothing to do with the states, unlike the 2nd. Also, the Supreme Court has been constant since its inception on the issue that states get to regulate firearms. It's never been an unrestrained individual right.

Yet the laws of America apply to the people within America, not people living in France, the UK or Afghanistan.
Not exactly. They apply to U.S. citizens living outside the U.S., as well, and they apply to any person within U.S. jurisdiction -- be that any embassy, territory or military base (temporary or permanent) anywhere in the world.

See, this type of debate is healthy. Sticking around people who agree with you, and calling anyone who disagrees stupid or racist isn't constructive or healthy. Are there people from both sides of the political spectrum guilty of this behavior? Absolutely, but liberals have become a victim of their own popularity--when Sean Penn or Alec Baldwin start yelling and screaming, they are celebrated as heroes, not treated like the ignorant assholes that they truly are.
What comes around goes around. Liberals are now where conservatives were after the 2002 midterm elections. Remember back then? When the Democrat party was dead?

Check this out. It's already happening... (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/rasmussen_poll_gop/2009/06/09/223148.html)

Das Kahlua

06-09-2009, 09:28 PM

That's because the latter three amendments have nothing to do with the states, unlike the 2nd. Also, the Supreme Court has been constant since its inception on the issue that states get to regulate firearms. It's never been an unrestrained individual right.

Well, we'll see what the trend is now following the Heller decision.

Not exactly. They apply to U.S. citizens living outside the U.S., as well, and they apply to any person within U.S. jurisdiction -- be that any embassy, territory or military base (temporary or permanent) anywhere in the world.

Yes and no. Certainly our laws do pertain to our personnel outside of the US, but organizations like the US military also have their own separate criminal justice system/standards which do differ in some major ways from the standards that typical Americans are held to.

Our laws have never been made to apply wholesale to foreign nationals, however, nor do I believe that they ever should, but there are plenty of people who disagree with me there.

What comes around goes around. Liberals are now where conservatives were after the 2002 midterm elections. Remember back then? When the Democrat party was dead?

Check this out. It's already happening... (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/rasmussen_poll_gop/2009/06/09/223148.html)

Of course, politics is cyclical. This is just further proof of that.

Okie Medicvet

06-10-2009, 12:28 AM

can't resist:

Once again, you are having this debate with the emotional level of Okie.

Just tell me this, is my emotional level at, above, or below "compassionate conservatism" ?

Because i would really like to know your opinion on that.

Das Kahlua

06-10-2009, 12:40 AM

can't resist:

Just tell me this, is my emotional level at, above, or below "compassionate conservatism" ?

Because i would really like to know your opinion on that.

I don't know who said that, but I do know that I think that the title "compassionate conservative" is complete and utter bullshit.

I believe that our laws should be based on the Constitution and reason, not what our emotions dictate or what an opportunistic politician can force down our throats to gain votes.

The law is the law, it is equal for everyone. It doesn't get any more fair than that. We certainly shouldn't start changing it because we feel bad for certain groups, that will only lead to more abuses of power.

I have no problem have discussions and disagreements with people on this forum like Pharon and Arch, because I know that they will be discussing the facts, and we can at least respectfully agree to disagree. The wheels come off the train with people like taters who prefer to ignore the facts in favor for their personal opinions/ideologies. It then becomes impossible to have an argument with someone who is clearly not having the same discussion that you are.

The sad thing is, that is too often the situation with our current political situation. Too many people, including a depressing number of elected officials, are willing to not only ignore the laws and Constitution, but to in fact throw them right out the window, in order to further their goals.

My question is this: these officials all take an oath to uphold and protect the laws and Constitution of the United States. Why have these assholes not been thrown out of office for violating said oath?

freegood

06-10-2009, 01:57 AM

The article doesn't make jack shit of any case except "People Choose News That Fits Their Views" or... most people see what they fucking want to see in pop science news articles that doesn't claim anything definitive outside a title that even a moron can agree with.

It's a shotgun of random little studies and professors claiming as experts supporting or contradicting each other .

That particular study Redsox really really really likes but likely hasn't read in more detail isn't iron clad because there's little details like sample size, population bias, age bias, blah de fucking blah other things that Soup Nazi mentioned but no one else cared or bothered to know what he was talking about. For all we know, the liberals tested already knew the issues so they didn't have to read as much. Or maybe they can read faster because they know more words over 2 syllables.

Awww. I had to go there.

For that matter, I can make those guesses right here and now. There's more than 139 on GMF. I'm so waiting for Redsox's thread on it with some out of context title and its complementary left field conclusion.

Das Kahlua

06-10-2009, 01:58 AM

The article doesn't make jack shit of any case except "People Choose News That Fits Their Views" or... most people see what they fucking want to see in pop science news articles that doesn't claim anything definitive outside a title that even a moron can agree with. It's a shotgun of random little studies and professors claiming as experts supporting or contradicting each other .

That particular study Redsox really really really likes but likely hasn't read in more detail isn't iron clad because there's little details like sample size, population bias, age bias, blah de fucking blah other things that Soup Nazi mentioned but no one else cared or bothered to know what he was talking about. For all we know, the liberals tested already knew the issues so they didn't have to read as much. Or maybe they can read faster because they know more words over 2 syllables.

Awww. I had to go there.

For that matter, I can make those guesses right here and now. There's more than 139 on GMF. I'm so waiting for Redsox's thread on it with some out of context title with its complementary left field conclusion.

Dude, why do you hate America?

freegood

06-10-2009, 02:02 AM

For starters, our president is black.

How the hell did that happen?

Das Kahlua

06-10-2009, 02:09 AM

For starters, our president is black.

How the hell did that happen?

1/2 black.

I blame Hollywood and their socialist agenda that they have been forcing on America since the 50's. Joe McCarthy was only wrong in that he didn't go far or long enough.

And that we stopped burning witches at the stake, that probably should have been continued as well.

Pharon

06-10-2009, 12:31 PM

Well, we'll see what the trend is now following the Heller decision.
Yes. For what it's worth, I think the opinion was poorly written. It should have overturned the DC law, not because the 2nd amendment is a clear individual right, but rather because Congress (specifically) is prohibited from regulating it. Scalia blatantly omitted any mention of the real meanings behind Cruikshank and Presser, namely that the 2nd amendment only prohibited Congress, not the states, from regulating arms. By ignoring this, Heller is sure to be "clarified" at some point in the future. We'll see, I guess. (Not that I disagree with the premise -- I support the idea that bearing arms is an individual right -- just that it doesn't mesh with the past 150 years of precedent, that's all... and it could be a problem at some point in the future.)

Certainly our laws do pertain to our personnel outside of the US, but organizations like the US military also have their own separate criminal justice system/standards which do differ in some major ways from the standards that typical Americans are held to.
Yes. I did not mean to imply that every person under U.S. jurisdiction has the right to be tried in our domestic criminal justice system -- only that everyone we deal with needs to be treated equally under whatever laws we have pertaining to them. In other words, our military and government need to be bound by laws, regardless of the scum they need to deal with. If those laws are unclear, then Congress needs to clarify them. There can be no gray area, where the President can just blindly decide what's best.

Our laws have never been made to apply wholesale to foreign nationals, however, nor do I believe that they ever should, but there are plenty of people who disagree with me there.
Our laws apply to everyone equally on our soil, citizen and non-citizen alike. Off of our soil is a different story, and I believe we've made some great inroads legally in the past 8 years to deal with those gray areas.

But I also think we aren't all the way there just yet.

Das Kahlua

06-10-2009, 12:59 PM

Yes. For what it's worth, I think the opinion was poorly written. It should have overturned the DC law, not because the 2nd amendment is a clear individual right, but rather because Congress (specifically) is prohibited from regulating it. Scalia blatantly omitted any mention of the real meanings behind Cruikshank and Presser, namely that the 2nd amendment only prohibited Congress, not the states, from regulating arms. By ignoring this, Heller is sure to be "clarified" at some point in the future. We'll see, I guess. (Not that I disagree with the premise -- I support the idea that bearing arms is an individual right -- just that it doesn't mesh with the past 150 years of precedent, that's all... and it could be a problem at some point in the future.)

I'm not an attorney, but as I understand it Heller was based on the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment, or something like that.

But I also think we aren't all the way there just yet.

It's a marathon, not a sprint.

Pharon

06-10-2009, 01:12 PM

I'm not an attorney, but as I understand it Heller was based on the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment, or something like that.
Not exactly. the 9th Circuit recently ruled that Heller did incorporate it, but the 7th Circuit ruled that it did not. I'm sure there will be a case before the Supremes sometime soon to clarify the matter.

It's a marathon, not a sprint.
And unfortunately in the meantime, there are people being held by our government without due process...

redsox39

06-10-2009, 01:16 PM

I support the idea that bearing arms is an individual right -- just that it doesn't mesh with the past 150 years of precedent, that's all... and it could be a problem at some point in the future.)

Since when has 150 years of precedent slowed anything down?

(See: Chrysler/Fiat/Obama)

Das Kahlua

06-10-2009, 01:22 PM

Not exactly. the 9th Circuit recently ruled that Heller did incorporate it, but the 7th Circuit ruled that it did not. I'm sure there will be a case before the Supremes sometime soon to clarify the matter.

It's so much more fun to leave an issue like gun control in legal limbo.

And unfortunately in the meantime, there are people being held by our government without due process...

I had wished that after the SCOTUS struck down the use of military tribunals for these detainees, that Bush would have found a practical work-around instead of leaving them locked up and forgotten about. I sincerely hope that Obama will take that up where Bush failed, but I certainly don't believe that civilian trials in the US is a practical solution.

Pharon

06-10-2009, 01:30 PM

It's so much more fun to leave an issue like gun control in legal limbo.
The thing is, Scalia is smart enough to know about incorporation -- so I'm not sure why he omitted doing that in the Heller opinion... unless someone (*cough* Kennedy *cough*) was against it. Who knows, though.

I had wished that after the SCOTUS struck down the use of military tribunals for these detainees, that Bush would have found a practical work-around instead of leaving them locked up and forgotten about. I sincerely hope that Obama will take that up where Bush failed, but I certainly don't believe that civilian trials in the US is a practical solution.
No, civilian trials are not the right solution. Al Qaeda is not a sovereign nation, but it's far more like one than it is a criminal organization. I think the rule of law here should be -- if our soldiers are doing the capturing: military tribunals; if domestic/international police are doing the capturing: criminal trial.

Unfortunately, Obama isn't doing shit about any of this right now. Not that you'll hear outrage over it in the mainstream media anytime soon.

freegood

06-10-2009, 03:04 PM

Unfortunately, Obama isn't doing shit about any of this right now. Not that you'll hear outrage over it in the mainstream media anytime soon.

It's not an easy answer. Bush in his final months made some statements about trying to reform that system only to discover who messy and painful it would be to actually do it. Obama made a lot of campaign promises but is pretty much continuing Bush's policies.

Neither side of the political field will admit that. Republicans through Cheney will parrot that Obama's actions are weakening national security, and the admin is more than happy enough to claim how clumsy and destructive Bush had been over this issue.

Das Kahlua

06-10-2009, 05:11 PM

It's not an easy answer. Bush in his final months made some statements about trying to reform that system only to discover who messy and painful it would be to actually do it. Obama made a lot of campaign promises but is pretty much continuing Bush's policies.

Neither side of the political field will admit that. Republicans through Cheney will parrot that Obama's actions are weakening national security, and the admin is more than happy enough to claim how clumsy and destructive Bush had been over this issue.

Easier to sit around and blame Bush for being ineffective than try and get stuff done and look ineffective themselves.

HAWK

06-11-2009, 10:18 AM

C'mon -- you're smarter than this... hypocrisy is ABOUND on both sides of the spectrum here. And the older I get, the more equal I'm seeing hypocrisy on both sides. This whole idea that "conservatives base their arguments on reason and logic" is a bunch of bullshit.

So true.

Whiffleball

06-13-2009, 05:24 PM

*BANG BANG BANG* "What did you say, officer?" (http://www.alternet.org/rights/135592/did_paranoid_right-wing_media_fuel_the_pittsburgh_cop_killer%27s_rage/)

*BANG BANG BANG* "I am very confident abortion is murder! (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/31/tiller/index.html)

*BANG BANG BANG* "This Holocaust museum opposes my viewpoint!" (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&oi=news_result&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fi4.democracynow.org%2F2009%2F6%2F 11%2Fshooting&ei=nCY0StfWDY7SNK6ajf8J&rct=j&q=holocaust+guard&usg=AFQjCNF73ltPqkw0DfW1lWnZG6UOJl_2xA)

Neither left or right is more rational or better, they all have fucking lunatics and fanatics. Of course, when the DHS releases a report that right-wing nutjobs may go on lone wolf killing sprees, it's an "attack upon conservatives" and Republicans foam at the mouth

Desperado

06-16-2009, 08:58 AM

Conservatives More confident; More likely to Listen and Read Opposing Viewpoints
I didnt want to add a new thread for this... but this feels like a good place to put this.

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10526195
OP activist says escaped gorilla was "ancestor" of Michelle Obama

Posted: June 12, 2009 06:19 PM CDT
Updated: June 15, 2009 01:44 PM CDT
http://wistv.images.worldnow.com/images/10526195_BG1.jpgScreen capture of the comment (Source: FITSNews)
http://wistv.images.worldnow.com/images/10526195_BG2.jpgRusty DePass (Source: Facebook)

By Ben Hoover - bio (http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8909403) | email (bhoover@wistv.com)
COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) - A state Republican activist has admitted to and apologized for calling a gorilla that escaped from the Riverbanks Zoo Friday an "ancestor" of First Lady Michelle Obama.
A screen capture of the comment, made on the Internet site Facebook, was obtained by FITSNews, the website of South Carolina politico Will Folks.
The image shows a post by an aide to state Attorney General Henry McMaster describing Friday morning's gorilla escape (http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10522681) at Columbia's Riverbanks Zoo.
Longtime SCGOP activist and former state Senate candidate Rusty DePass responded with the comment, "I'm sure it's just one of Michelle's ancestors - probably harmless."
DePass told WIS News 10 he was talking about First Lady Michelle Obama.
DePass has been involved in state politics for decades, and helped elect Republican Governor Jim Edwards in 1974. He was an early South Carolina supporter of former President George W. Bush in 2000.
We asked some of DePass' political allies and rivals what they thought about the comment.
"Even if it was taken out of context - its not something that should have ever been said. It's sad, disappointing, and unfortunate," said former SCGOP Chairman Katon Dawson.
Columbia Mayor Bob Coble also condemns the comment.
"You know, I think the comment is inappropriate. It's a racist comment," he says. "I think Mr. DePass should apologize."
We spoke with DePass over the phone Friday night. He said, "I am as sorry as I can be if I offended anyone. The comment was clearly in jest."
"You know, I don't think there's anything funny about that comment," says Coble. "That is the First Lady of the United States. We've had a long tradition of wonderful first ladies, and I don't think any of them deserve that type of comment."
DePass took his apology a bit further. He also said, "The comment was hers. Not mine," saying the first lady made statements in the media recently saying we are all descendents of apes.
But an Internet search for those comments turned up no news articles of the like.
"I don't know of any," says Coble.
All of that aside, the mayor wants a clear-cut apology.
"Rusty DePass is well known in the community, and I know he's done very good things in addition to his political work," says Mayor Coble. "I don't want a comment like that coming out of Columbia, South Carolina for the world to comment on."
The comment has been removed from Facebook. DePass' Facebook page has also been deleted.

and just for a few laughs...

http://blogs.nashvillescene.com/pitw/2009/06/republican_staffer_e-mails_oba.php
Tennessee GOP Staffer Emails Racist Obama "Spook" Photo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/16/tennessee-gop-staffer-ema_n_216085.html)

Sherri Goforth, an executive assistant for Tennessee State Rep. Diane Black (R-Gallatin), sent this picture out to other legislative staffers (http://blogs.nashvillescene.com/pitw/2009/06/republican_staffer_e-mails_oba.php):
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-06-16-image0012300x246.jpgThe email was headlined "Historical Keepsake Photo."
One staffer who received the email publicized it online (http://newscoma.com/2009/06/15/racist-and-ridiculous/):
I talked to my local rep, Mark Maddox about it, and described the picture to him at a recent fund raising event. I think he was as appalled as I was. I was going to post it last week but there was a death in my family and I had to think about it.
Because it made me mad.
But, you know, people need to know that this stuff is going on. I would be just as angry if a democratic staffer had sent it.
Dammit, Tennessee, haven't we moved past this kind of crap. I'm serious.
Goforth admitted to sending the email, but she apologized only for sending it to the wrong people (http://www.nashvilleistalking.com/2009/06/sen-diane-blacks-r-gallatin-legislative-aid-circulates-racist-email/).
"I went on the wrong email and I inadvertently hit the wrong button," Goforth said. "I'm very sick about it, and it's one of those things I can't change or take back."

Morfin

06-16-2009, 09:03 AM

Goforth admitted to sending the email, but she apologized only for sending it to the wrong people.
"I went on the wrong email and I inadvertently hit the wrong button," Goforth said. "I'm very sick about it, and it's one of those things I can't change or take back."

Unbelievable. She doesn't apologize for sending it out, only for sending it to the wrong people.

Hanover Fist

06-16-2009, 09:15 AM

Everyone knows Michelle is a wookie not an ape sheesh.

Pharon

06-16-2009, 09:57 AM

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that both of those stories are coming from formerly Confederate states.

heelsguy

06-16-2009, 10:12 AM

Michelle is kinda manish

Hanover Fist

06-16-2009, 10:31 AM

Michelle is kinda manish

C'mon dude the only difference between her and Chewbacca is the laser crossbow

Morfin

06-16-2009, 11:18 AM

Dude, that is sooo harsh.

heelsguy

06-16-2009, 11:28 AM

I have never seen a woman with more of a "lighbulb" figure than Michelle. holy shit no wonder she always wears dresses. her kids could have come out of her doing jumping jacks

redsox39

06-16-2009, 11:31 AM

Well...to be fair...I thought we did come from some line of apes...

Or was that only white people? I heard Blacks came from ships this one time...

redsox39

06-16-2009, 11:35 AM

Unbelievable. She doesn't apologize for sending it out, only for sending it to the wrong people.

Oops! she sent it to people who can't take a joke! Would you apologize for anything you have said on here? What about via email?

So she is honest, she is sorry that she sent it to some people who pretended to be offended for political gain, woo-hoo.

Sure its racist, but so are all those jokes about the black guy and your bicycle, or polish jokes.

LIGHTEN THE FUCK UP PEOPLE!! This is just as bad as the Letterman thing. Fucking dildos up everyones ass, I swear!

Desperado

06-16-2009, 12:58 PM

Hanover Fist

06-16-2009, 01:03 PM

I agree, this was way out of line and the person should resign. period.

Das Kahlua

06-16-2009, 01:08 PM

Of course this was racist. So? One of the beautiful parts of living in a free society is you have the right to say whatever you want, even if it offends others. Of course, her boss also has the right to fire her racist ass if those words interfere with her job, which is sounds like they have. Don't like it? Don't send out e-mails at work that aren't work-related, whether they're racist, sexist, pornographic or just crude.

HAWK

06-16-2009, 01:53 PM

Das Kahlua

06-16-2009, 02:04 PM

Most people are waaaay to fucking sensitive these days. Fire her, or not. But in the end there's so many of these BS claims that when a real one comes along nobody's listening.

Everyone needs to toughen up. We all will get "trodden on" in our lifetime. That's just the way it is.

Why are you surprised? Our government has been subsidizing 'victim groups' for the last 50+ years, it's little wonder that more and more groups are assuming that title to reap the benefits.

Nowadays it's not enough for us ensure that homosexuals are treated equally, we have to celebrate them and accept their lifestyle; it's not enough to ensure that blacks and other minorities have equal access to college and job opportunities as whites, we have to give them special advantages; it's only appropriate to harshly condemn the racist words and actions of whites, while excusing and enabling racists like Rev. Wright or Louis Farrakhan.

As Hawk said, fire this bitch or don't, I couldn't care less, but there are enough stupid assholes in the world that we can't make a federal case out of every time one of them says or does something retarded.

redsox39

06-16-2009, 04:02 PM

Come on now redsox open your fucking eyes... shes an executive assistant for State Rep. You cannont send an obviously racist email to other people that work in public office like this and not expect to get in trouble. Odds are that one of the people that recieved this in "error" could have been black and easily taken offense. So you're saying they should learn to take a joke, black or not... please come back to reality. Even though this is the south its not fucking 1960.

Oh, I agree she should be in trouble, everyone gets in trouble for shit we joke about on here ever 5.7 seconds. I am saying she is just being honest with her apology. She isn't really sorry she sent the email, she is REALLY sorry she sent it to some bitch who ratted her out, lol.

She obviously thought it was funny. Just like Mongo thinks he is funny, and Goat and Limp...and I don't see you getting upset and pointing out they are stuck in 1960 every time they make a joke about an uppitty ******.

So I am glad she was honest with her apology. Maybe if everyone stopped playing the fucking pussy game that you love, people could just be themselves. Wouldn't that be nice.

Desperado

06-16-2009, 04:23 PM

She obviously thought it was funny. Just like Mongo thinks he is funny, and Goat and Limp...and I don't see you getting upset and pointing out they are stuck in 1960 every time they make a joke about an uppitty ******.

So I am glad she was honest with her apology. Maybe if everyone stopped playing the fucking pussy game that you love, people could just be themselves. Wouldn't that be nice.

Exactly my point, she made a racist joke, she didnt feel bad about making that joke... again the problem is she works in a public office where making racial jokes is grounds for termination. Are you really that blind to see the issue here? Im all for freedom of speech, but when you're at work, regardless of its public office, you cant just run your mouth making racist jokes and not expect consequences. Public and private sectors would almost certianly terminate you for some shit like that.

If she really wants to be "Herself" she should just show up in a KKK outfit and really let everyone know how she feels about the colored folk.

redsox39

06-16-2009, 04:31 PM

Exactly my point, she made a racist joke, she didnt feel bad about making that joke... again the problem is she works in a public office where making racial jokes is grounds for termination. Are you really that blind to see the issue here? Im all for freedom of speech, but when you're at work, regardless of its public office, you cant just run your mouth making racist jokes and not expect consequences. Public and private sectors would almost certianly terminate you for some shit like that.

If she really wants to be "Herself" she should just show up in a KKK outfit and really let everyone know how she feels about the colored folk.

I am not disagreeing with you!! lol

You can't do that shit at work.

But now think "Why not?"

Because someone will call Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Crew and sue the shit out of your company for being racist.

But does telling racial jokes or "forwarding" racial humor make you a racist? I am pretty sure that if that statement were true, we might as well start the GMF branch of the KKK and our charter would be full.

Desperado

06-16-2009, 04:32 PM

I am not disagreeing with you!! lol

But does telling racial jokes or "forwarding" racial humor make you a racist? I am pretty sure that if that statement were true, we might as well start the GMF branch of the KKK and our charter would be full.

No arguement from me on that one.

But ya... she didnt really feel the need to apologize or clairfy that it was just a joke. She basically said I just sent it to the wrong peoplem oops... so ya.

redsox39

06-16-2009, 04:43 PM

No arguement from me on that one.

But ya... she didnt really feel the need to apologize or clairfy that it was just a joke. She basically said I just sent it to the wrong peoplem oops... so ya.

Joke:http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd96/jyce50/joke.jpg

Not a Joke: http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd96/jyce50/jokeno.jpg

I know Common sense can escape our "political minds" sometimes, but seriously, let's get a grip here.

For all you know, a black dude made that email to start with, you have no proof otherwise. So...if a black guy made it, is it still racist? lol

Yelram

06-16-2009, 04:48 PM

Conservatives More confident; More likely to Listen and Read Opposing Viewpoints
I didnt want to add a new thread for this... but this feels like a good place to put this.

and just for a few laughs...

So somehow, listening to others points of view has suddenly become "teh republicans are racist". Lets see some examples of liberal tolerance at its best.

aM3w9jeugkE
IGB8oZIpZM8
Fv9xa-VxchM
-3-ZGx-XqQo
ZJADMlBE9JY
C9ULXvzUd9I

I mean if its not apparent with how the Left threats minorities and women on the right. If Palin was a lefty, the media would have wooed us with how sophisticated, and intelligent she was. If Clarence Thomas, or Condoleeza Rice were Liberals, we would have heard about how the always tolerant left has brought minorities and women into the political arena. But the second they admit to having conservative views, they become "aunt Jemima, and Uncle Thomas. Women become ditsy housewives who cant think for themselves, or are somehow being controlled by some man. As if having a conservative viewpoint requires some sort of extreme coercion. You can call the new breed of fascism "liberal" all you want, a ducks a duck.

I have lots of friends that like to discuss politics, and I'll tell you, in my experience, Conservatives like to talk about politics, Liberals do not. Liberals tend to get very uncomfortable when they have to support their views with anything more than an msnbc headline, or bumper sticker slogan. I disagree with my conservative friends on finer points, everything from abortion, to gun control. We usually leave the discussion still disagreeing, but both having a better grasp of the others ideas. It seems, in my experience, liberals do not want this.

BIG PIZZLE

06-16-2009, 06:49 PM

If there is any posterboy for conservative confidence, it's the dude who rocks a beard that makes him look like a woman.

Yelram

06-26-2009, 10:53 AM

If there is any posterboy for conservative confidence, it's the dude who rocks a beard that makes him look like a woman.

All you have to do to look like a woman is stand beside someone 5'4" or taller.

Tar Heel

06-26-2009, 11:44 AM

If Palin was a lefty, the media would have wooed us with how sophisticated, and intelligent she was.

...are you deaf or something?

If there's one reason that McCain lost, it's Palin's dumbassedness.

Hanover Fist

06-26-2009, 11:55 AM

...are you deaf or something?

If there's one reason that McCain lost, it's Palin's dumbassedness.

Well, that is considered a virtue by most Democrats, witness the current leaders of the House and Senate and current VP.