Be Careful Out There:

[ravingdave]

there was an actual survey conducted by Zogby that demonstrated Obama voters were incredibly ignorant.

He wants to spend money improving run down schools. Why wouldn't they vote for him?

I guess i'm getting denser, cause i'm having a hard time figuring out what you mean. The statement makes sense both ways. As sarcasm, and as an honest statement.

The education people ( bureaucrats, teachers unions) are overwhelmingly in favor of more money for them, and they overwhelmingly vote Democrat. It is an old mantra. They say "Give us money for education" when they mean (but don't say) "Give us more money because we RUN education. " (you know, pay raises, and more employees to boss around.)

I've seen various charts of education quality vs. per capita expenditures, and there seems to be a negative corelation. It would appear that the more money you spend on "education" the poorer is the education that the children receive.


David

[Mike Holmes]

Zogby decides not to take a bet, which will profit them nothing if they win, and cost them if they lose, and that's proof that they feel that there are more ignorant libs then cons? Zogby does polls when there's money in it, like any business. I could argue that if they original poll wanted a comparison that they would have ordered up one, but must not have because they were too scared of the possible results.

I have the wonderful pleasure of regularly being exposed to a whole subculture of gun-rack-in-the-pickup-truck voters who believe that you have to vote Republican, because that's the party that could eventually ban the teaching of evolution in schools, and replace it with creationism. No, not even side by side, they think that evolution is evil, and needs to be buried. One once argued to me, "You don't actually believe that some monkey changed into a man, do ya?"

A substantial part of the populace of the city I live in, and whole towns outside of the city, are involved in this subculture. My favorite part of their rhetoric is that they vote Republican, while largely being drug addicts. Marijuana, Cocaine (including Crack), Oxycodone, Ecxtasy... not just the stereotypical Methamphetamine. They take welfare as often as they can get it, while simultaneously badmouthing "welfare mothers." Because, you know, when they take it, it's because they deserve it.

Whereas the ignorant liberal says, "Gimme, gimme" the ignorant conservative hypocritically says, "Give me, but not anyone else." I run into this latter attitude on a daily basis. Wheras the poor minorities that I happen to be aquainted with, people who had to suffer through some of the worst of the school systems out there, seem quite a lot more humble. Like, "Well, we can't expect others to just bail us out, we've got to muddle through ourselves."

So you'll forgive me if I find it hard to believe that the left has some sort of corner on ignorance. Perhaps it's a local phenomenon, but I encounter this wherever I travel, it seems to me. I'm not saying that the libs don't have dumb people on their side, too. Just that there are bad arguments that will attract people to both sides of the fence.

If you want to argue that some party has more intelligent folks in it, because they don't cater to selfishness, then vote Libertarian. I can buy that argument. I've yet to meet an ignorant Libertarian... but I'm sure it'll be interesting when it happens. I've met plenty of ignorant fascists, OTOH. And we're not talking Communists, here, either: www.stormfront.org/

These people have a vested belief in ignorance; all while claiming to be the only enlightened people about. It's a neat trick... "Don't pay attention to what they teach you in school, that's all a ploy by the minorities to subjugate you. That's the real truth. We want liberty! For the rightful few!"

Or, as MSimon might point out, they might as well be shouting "Lebensraum!" In fact, I think they are...

Mike

[ravingdave]

We are about to get the government the press wanted us to have. Good and hard. There was an exchange after the election on a major TV show by some talking heads and they said - "We don't know anything about this guy". I could look it up if you are interested:

This is exactly why my wife and I didn't vote for him. This was almost totally a media won election, hype at it's finest. Sadly most people bought into it.

It is now my personal opinion that the American Media represent the greatest threat to freedom that exists today. By controlling what the people are permitted to hearand see, they steer public opinion among the most guillable, and they likewise create guillability by the presentation of so many false realities (TV Shows/Movies) with false outcomes.

I find it offensive that my side is constantly denied the ability to present it's views to the American people, or if in the case of an occasional opportunity, it must be against gale force winds and constant hoots of derision from those people who have the monopoly of the Media Distribution system. ( Broadcast, Cable, Satelite, Movies, Print, etc.)


The Monopoly needs to be destroyed, and the way to do it is by using alternative media (Internet TV, Blogs, etc.) Refusing to buy their products.(Newspapers, Magazines, or any product advertised on ABC, CBS, NBC), never buy New movies, (DVDs) Only Used ones, or Foreign, ( hey, the foreigners may be liberal, but the money isn't going to American Liberals.) If you must have some product of Liberal Hollywood, then get a pirate copy. Don't give them ANY money !


The New York times is dying. Lets help the rest of them die too ! Support Craigs list. Deprive print media of Ad revenue.

Let us continue to conduct Economic warfare against the 95% Liberal employees of the Media systems.



David

[Mike Holmes]

So... Fox News is also in on the Monopoly? Rush Limbaugh, too, I suppose? Wall Street Journal? These are exceptions that prove the rule? Well they certainly would like people to think so (all while claiming simultaneously to be beating the other side in popularity, somehow).

I think that the media is the largest example of a free market that exists. The media bend over backwards to give the viewers exactly what they ask for. It's a business, and they sell what people buy.

You never heard of ratings? It is the end-all, be-all of media.

Does that mean that bias does not exist? No, of course not. It means that there are venues that cater to each viewer's bias. In proportion to the number of viewers. Really small blocks get omitted - it's a high-overhead business.

Wait... are you an anarco-syndicalist? Well then, yeah, you don't get a channel...

I find your supposition that it's allright to deny Hollywood it's property rights to be precisely the sort of hypocrisy to which I refer in my previous post. "Property rights are sacred! Unless you're a liberal!"

OK, maybe there is a liberal bias to some extent in media... that means that there's more liberal media than evenly represents the people's desires. But it doesn't mean that the other side gets no press.

Further, I give folks more credit than you do. OK, sure, the dumb folks are going to be swayed... but they've already made up their minds to follow one way or the other by their dumb arguments. The smart people know that biases exist, and take that into account in terms of what they read. And these are the people who need persuading.

Mike

[ravingdave]

It was unbiased. It was done by a well recognized survey firm with Democrat leanings.

If you allow a comment from an alien (now that the election is over), the scientific method would have required an equivalent poll to be done among republican voters.

Well, I agree. I likewise believe that the outcome would validate the point of this current discussion.

Having done that, you would only measure the efficiency of each camp's smear campaigns (something like = validity of statement x emission power x sensitivity of receiver). After all isn't that what makes all the fun of politics in our modern democracies?

I don't think so. Republicans and Democrats split along various social/economic fissures throughout the country. As there must be differences between various groups of people, there would likewise have to be disparite results in querying these people.

As a general rule, you tell me some details about Age, Gender, Ethnicity, Education, Employment, Religion, Geographic location etc. and it is not difficult to predict with a high degree of accuracy how this person will vote.


To say that one side or the other is more knowledgable or more ignorant must be true, even if it's only by a small margin.


David

[Mike Holmes]

Small margin is not equal to a monopoly, or a crisis.

Mike

[ravingdave]

Zogby decides not to take a bet, which will profit them nothing if they win, and cost them if they lose, and that's proof that they feel that there are more ignorant libs then cons? Zogby does polls when there's money in it, like any business. I could argue that if they original poll wanted a comparison that they would have ordered up one, but must not have because they were too scared of the possible results.

Zoby was going to be paid for the survey, and therefore receive a profit if they win. Apart from that, they poll was somewhat famous for a short while, any Liberal that wanted to finance the opposite poll was welcome to do so, yet none stepped up to the plate.

I have the wonderful pleasure of regularly being exposed to a whole subculture of gun-rack-in-the-pickup-truck voters who believe that you have to vote Republican, because that's the party that could eventually ban the teaching of evolution in schools, and replace it with creationism. No, not even side by side, they think that evolution is evil, and needs to be buried. One once argued to me, "You don't actually believe that some monkey changed into a man, do ya?"

I have met people like this myself, but seldom at Republican Party gatherings. When they do show up, they are treated politely, but not taken seriously. I personally believe in evolution, and I likewise apply the theory to everything I encounter. It explains virtually everything in human history and social conduct.

A substantial part of the populace of the city I live in, and whole towns outside of the city, are involved in this subculture. My favorite part of their rhetoric is that they vote Republican, while largely being drug addicts. Marijuana, Cocaine (including Crack), Oxycodone, Ecxtasy... not just the stereotypical Methamphetamine. They take welfare as often as they can get it, while simultaneously badmouthing "welfare mothers." Because, you know, when they take it, it's because they deserve it.

I don't know any people like this that vote Republican. I have known a lot of people like this that don't vote at all. They are basically losers, and in any case, completely incompatible with the conservative philosophy of a strong work ethic and personal responsibility.

Whereas the ignorant liberal says, "Gimme, gimme" the ignorant conservative hypocritically says, "Give me, but not anyone else." I run into this latter attitude on a daily basis. Wheras the poor minorities that I happen to be aquainted with, people who had to suffer through some of the worst of the school systems out there, seem quite a lot more humble. Like, "Well, we can't expect others to just bail us out, we've got to muddle through ourselves."

This is completely outside my experience. The people I know are workers, who disdain assistance from anyone, and most especially the Government. They are an independent group, that is quite proud of the fact that they worked for what they got.

As for the school systems, I don't believe most people learn anything useful in school beyond the 6th grade. Frederick Douglas is an example of what a man can do if only he has the right attitude.

So you'll forgive me if I find it hard to believe that the left has some sort of corner on ignorance. Perhaps it's a local phenomenon, but I encounter this wherever I travel, it seems to me. I'm not saying that the libs don't have dumb people on their side, too. Just that there are bad arguments that will attract people to both sides of the fence.

I will not dispute that there are dumb people on both sides, I just happen to think there are more dumb one's on the liberal side, because I include the well endowed,(the beautiful people) well educated, and well financed liberals in the "dumb" catagory, not just the poor and poorly educated.

If you want to argue that some party has more intelligent folks in it, because they don't cater to selfishness, then vote Libertarian. I can buy that argument. I've yet to meet an ignorant Libertarian... but I'm sure it'll be interesting when it happens. I've met plenty of ignorant fascists, OTOH. And we're not talking Communists, here, either: www.stormfront.org/

I think you have to think to be a libertarian. I have long said that the Libertarians have the easiest to understand and most consistent philosophy of them all. I do however assert that Libertarianism is analogous with Newtonian Physics, while Conservatism is analogous with Einsteinian Physics. (Liberalism/Socialims is analogous with Alchemy and Voodoo. )

The reasons Conservatism is better than Libertarianism are not obvious on the surface, but they manifest themselves with a sufficiently Macroscopic view of Human history.

These people have a vested belief in ignorance; all while claiming to be the only enlightened people about. It's a neat trick... "Don't pay attention to what they teach you in school, that's all a ploy by the minorities to subjugate you. That's the real truth. We want liberty! For the rightful few!"

Or, as MSimon might point out, they might as well be shouting "Lebensraum!" In fact, I think they are...

Mike

To be fair, you have just described ALL humans. What you are pointing out is not specific to this group, but is an attitude manifested througout all of human history. It's genetic, and not just for humans. For all species and organisms.



David

[Mike Holmes]

To be fair, all I'm doing is trying to be fair. You're the one trying to ascribe an evolutionary problem to one half of the political spectrum.

Mike

[ravingdave]

So... Fox News is also in on the Monopoly? Rush Limbaugh, too, I suppose? Wall Street Journal? These are exceptions that prove the rule? Well they certainly would like people to think so (all while claiming simultaneously to be beating the other side in popularity, somehow).

I think that the media is the largest example of a free market that exists. The media bend over backwards to give the viewers exactly what they ask for. It's a business, and they sell what people buy.

The Media present a product. You either take their product or you get nothing. They are a monopoly, and except for the advent of Fox News for the last 15 years or so, the Monopoly is virtually monolythic. Even Fox News is headquartered in New York, and virtually eveyone that works there is a Union member with New York attitudes. (Liberal)

You never heard of ratings? It is the end-all, be-all of media.

Does that mean that bias does not exist? No, of course not. It means that there are venues that cater to each viewer's bias. In proportion to the number of viewers. Really small blocks get omitted - it's a high-overhead business.

Wait... are you an anarco-syndicalist? Well then, yeah, you don't get a channel...

Seriously ? You can't really be telling me that this is driven by market forces.

I find your supposition that it's allright to deny Hollywood it's property rights to be precisely the sort of hypocrisy to which I refer in my previous post. "Property rights are sacred! Unless you're a liberal!"

Asymetrical Warfare Baby ! The Liberals OWN the airwaves. They use their seized heights to bombard us with their superior firepower. The least we can do is to use a few sappers to collapse the ground under their feet.

In war, Hypocrisy is a virtue. The very idea of dealing equitably with your enemy is ridiculous.

OK, maybe there is a liberal bias to some extent in media... that means that there's more liberal media than evenly represents the people's desires. But it doesn't mean that the other side gets no press.

The list of inbreeding between the "News" organizations and the Democratic party is too extensive to allow anything remotely resembeling fairness. Chris Mathews WORKED for Tip O' Neal. George Stephanopolous WORKED for Bill Clinton. Cokie Roberts FATHER was a Democrat Senator. Andrew Cuomo's FATHER is Mario Cuomo. I have read of case after case where broadcast "News Journalists" Worked with, are married to, are related to various Democrat Politicians, and then claim to be unbiased.

Further, I give folks more credit than you do. OK, sure, the dumb folks are going to be swayed... but they've already made up their minds to follow one way or the other by their dumb arguments. The smart people know that biases exist, and take that into account in terms of what they read. And these are the people who need persuading.

Mike

How about a football game where the referees wear your oponents jerseys under their ref uniforms ? How about when you go to their houses and look inside, you see posters, hats, photos, and memorabilia all from your opponents team ? Then you find out they are RELATED to your opponents ?

How about a tag team wrestling match where your referee is yelling at your partner in a corner, while you're two opponents are busy punching you repeatedly and choking you on the ropes ? Not only does the ref let them get away with everything, he helps to trip you and punch you in the back of the head when you are not looking ! THAT's the media.

How many SNL parodies did you see of Obama, or the Democrats ? I saw exactly ONE, and they YANKED that one !


They endlessly mocked McCain and Palin, and ignored all the ridiculous things that Obama and Biden said. (especially Biden.) You know Palin's daughter is pregnant out of wedlock, but you never hear that Joe Biden's son and brother are being investigated(indicted?) for fraud and kickback schemes, some of which link back to Senator Biden.

You take a roll count at News Organizations and Hollywood Studios, you get 95% Liberal voters.

They are the current greatest threat to freedom in the world, in my opinion.

David

[ravingdave]

To be fair, all I'm doing is trying to be fair. You're the one trying to ascribe an evolutionary problem to one half of the political spectrum.

Mike

Sinistro, and bi-lateral symetry.

http://www.physorg.com/news149090509.html


David

[Mike Holmes]

And here I thought that all citizens in a democracy were possessed of equal rights. But they're the "enemy," so, I guess not.

Seems pretty self-serving... but what do I know.

As for the notion that Fox News is a source of liberal propaganda... well that's just patently incorrect. Or, wait, does the fact that they have liberal personnel not directly related to the product produced? Thus proving my theory that business decisions drive their output? Somebody's watching.

Mike

[ravingdave]

And here I thought that all citizens in a democracy were possessed of equal rights. But they're the "enemy," so, I guess not.

Seems pretty self-serving... but what do I know.

Mike

What is this talk of "Equal Rights ?" You punch me in the nose and i'm not going to cite abstract legalities at you, i'm going to try to hurt you, and hopefully prevent you from doing it again.

Access to the public consciousness is a limited resource like the Radio Spectrum, and it is monopolized by people of all like mind. Foolish people with a mind to steal from me and endanger my children. They do this by using their superior propaganda muscles to shout me down and mock my beliefs.

Equal Rights? Allow me Equal Rights and I will respect their's !

As for the notion that Fox News is a source of liberal propaganda... well that's just patently incorrect. Or, wait, does the fact that they have liberal personnel not directly related to the product produced? Thus proving my theory that business decisions drive their output? Somebody's watching.

I believe you misunderstand what i'm saying. Whether this be intentional or because I am not making myself clear I cannot tell.

Yes, Fox news is a source of liberal propaganda, No, it's not as bad as the others. By the very virtue of it being headquartered in New York, it cannot help but have a large staff from the surrounding population, who must of necessity problably be fairly representative of the people in New York City.

I will point out that the people of New York City are virtually guaranteed to vote left and Democrat.

An analogy would be if a Major News Network were headquartered in Salt Lake City Utah. Virtually everyone you hired would have voted Republican.

So how would Democrats like it if everyone working on the News Staff were Conservative Republican ? There are an awful lot of ugly stories that never get reported about Democrats.

As a matter of fact, i've noticed a lot of references to a game called "Name that Party ! " on various right-wing websites. They are all in references to examples of News stories in which some elected or appointed beuaracrat has done something illegal or unethical, but there is no mention of their party afilliation.(always Democrat) They Contrast this with the fact that whenever they have a story of a Republican Official doing something wrong, they mention the Republican afilliation over and over.


Fox has some conservative commentators and Guests. ABC has John Stossel. CNN USED to have Glen Beck. That's about it.


David

[MSimon]

And here I thought that all citizens in a democracy were possessed of equal rights. But they're the "enemy," so, I guess not.

Seems pretty self-serving... but what do I know.

As for the notion that Fox News is a source of liberal propaganda... well that's just patently incorrect. Or, wait, does the fact that they have liberal personnel not directly related to the product produced? Thus proving my theory that business decisions drive their output? Somebody's watching.

Mike

Well let me put it this way Mike. The results of the poll were quite shocking - that the media was delivering only 1/2 the news. It was burying the positions of the Democrat and running discrediting trivia on the Republicans.

So the guy that commissioned the poll tried to get some other major pollster with Democrat leanings (so the results couldn't be attributed to bias) to run the poll for verification and none of them would touch it.

That has to tell you something about bias. Why would the pollsters be afraid of the results? After all - aren't they supposed to be in it for the money?

And you know the bias of the media is not in doubt. 90% of those doing the reporting vote Democrat. That seems a tad biased to me.

Not to worry. Newspapers are folding and the TV networks are losing viewers.

http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1262

Nearly two-thirds of those online respondents who detected bias in the media (64%) said the media leans left, while slightly more than a quarter of respondents (28%) said they see a conservative bias on their TV sets and in their column inches. The survey, which focuses on perceptions of the “old” and “new” media, will be released today at the PoliticsOnline Conference 2007 at GWU. It is also featured in the March issue of Zogby’s Real America newsletter, now available on www.zogby.com.

While 97% of Republicans surveyed said the media are liberal, two-thirds of political independents feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a conservative bias. Democrats, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the media was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a left-wing media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed right – and 17% said the bias favored the left.

The Zogby Interactive survey of 1,757 likely voters nationwide was conducted Feb. 20-26, 2007, and has a margin of error of +/- 2.4 percentage points.

http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp

How the Media Vote. Surveys of journalists’ self-reported voting habits show them backing the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1964, including landslide losers George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. In 2004, a poll conducted by the University of Connecticut found journalists backed John Kerry over George W. Bush by a greater than two-to-one margin. See Section.

Journalists’ Political Views. Compared to their audiences, journalists are far more likely to say they are Democrats or liberals, and they espouse liberal positions on a wide variety of issues. A 2004 poll by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press found five times more journalists described themselves as “liberal” as said they were “conservative.” See Section.

How the Public Views the Media. In increasing numbers, the viewing audiences recognize the media’s liberal tilt. Gallup polls have consistently found that three times as many see the media as “too liberal” as see a media that is “too conservative.” A 2005 survey conducted for the American Journalism Review found nearly two-thirds of the public disagreed with the statement, “The news media try to report the news without bias,” and 42 percent of adults disagreed strongly. See Section.

Admissions of Liberal Bias. A number of journalists have admitted that the majority of their brethren approach the news from a liberal angle. During the 2004 presidential campaign, for example, Newsweek’s Evan Thomas predicted that sympathetic media coverage would boost Kerry’s vote by “maybe 15 points,” which he later revised to five points. In 2005, ex-CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter confessed he stopped watching his old network: “The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me.” See Section

Does that give a clue as to why the internet is rising and TV and newspapers are falling?

The 'net just passed newspapers in terms of viewers this year.

We are going back to the good old days where you subscribed to the xxx Democrat or the yyy Republican.

[alexjrgreen]

I will point out that the people of New York City are virtually guaranteed to vote left and Democrat.

Staten Island voted for McCain:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/e ... 008/ny.htm (hold your mouse over the red dot)

[Mike Holmes]

Fox has some conservative commentators and Guests. ABC has John Stossel. CNN USED to have Glen Beck. That's about it.

You must be kidding.

Fox has "some" conservative commentators? But they're generally liberal?

As for CNN... Lou Dobbs? That's just off the top of my head.

Wall Street Journal? A ton of radio broadcasters? The internet (what, this forum isn't a form of media)?

You're right... the media is entirely liberal... except for all of the conservatives...

Freedom of speech means that the liberals get to say what they want. You're saying there's no competition between stations? There's no anti-trust law being broken, no secret cabal that owns all of these outlets. Rupert Murdoch keeps trying to buy more and more, and you're not going to claim he's a liberal, are you? You want equal time for your views to be mandated by law? There are already a ton of FCC regulations on the books, but you can feel free to get your representative to put new laws in place.

Oh, that's right, the media has duped America out of letting you have any representatives. Except for the 42% in the Senate...

If what they put out on Fox is stuff you consider liberal, then I guess we have very different definitions for the terms. Yours being quite marginal. Sorry, it's a democracy, and you're in a very small minority. You'd have us set aside all our previous judgement because we should trust Dave's definitions?

What, there are more of your type? Well, go form a political party then or something. Shouting "we're not being heard" in a public forum, and getting responses is, well, quite absurd. Or are you only being heard if people agree with you? Ever consider you might be wrong? Nah, you're a conservative, you can't be wrong. Right?

If there is a liberal bias in the media, it does not constitute a monopoply of any sort. If the media does push one candidate or another, people still have a free will, and minds. Bias has always existed in media, since the Romans came up with the term "graphiti." And somehow we've managed to get along with this problem for more than two centuries in this country.

Get a grip. Your screen identity, Ravingdave, is becoming more and more appropriate.

Mike

P.S. edited, because I cross-posted with MSimon... If your argument is that there's no issue, because it's correcting itself, then I'm in complete agreement with you. It's Dave's assertion that we need to do illegal things to rectify some non-existent problem. Mine is that he just needs to take a deep breath, and look around.

To some extent, all I'm arguing is that I don't believe that the media has some inordinate ability to alter elections. I mean... are you going to tell me that you voted for Obama, only knowing all the glowing things that the media told you about him? No? You voted for the other guy? Well that must have been an informed decision, yes? Apparently it's not impossible to get the real picture then?