|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 09/17/2008 : 11:43:23
|
... fucked up.
Refutation of false claims STRENGTHENS THE FALSE CLAIM for conservatives, but not for liberals.
Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.
|
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
Edited by - Dude on 09/17/2008 11:43:42
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2008 : 12:10:27 [Permalink]
|
| Methinks that, from talking to my conservative parents and others, they automatically distrust anything that comes from the media or from scientists/intellectuals...they think that it is all liberal bias. It is anti-confirmation-bias. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2008 : 13:24:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Methinks that, from talking to my conservative parents and others, they automatically distrust anything that comes from the media or from scientists/intellectuals...they think that it is all liberal bias. It is anti-confirmation-bias.
|
Well, there is some evidence that the Media can be a problem for both sides. But if they cut scientists and intellectuals from the debate, what's left? Politicians? Spin doctors for their side?
This year they are even being told not to trust their own party. Maverick and Calamity Palin are gonna clean up Dodge and save them from everyone. What those less than wealthy Republicans respond to is the promise of a good ass-kicking. Change is nice, but a good ass-kicking is better.
If they win and follow through with an attempted ass-kicking, their own party, along with the Dems in Washington will revolt. Whole states that rely on earmarks, at least in part for infrastructure improvements and science and education will revolt. The amount of gridlock will be unprecedented. Government will come to a standstill.
But that isn't going to happen if they win because they are lying through their teeth. How do I know? Because they have support from Republican law makers, including Republican Governors who rely on earmarks to keep their states running.
Anyhow, whatever...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2008 : 16:51:28 [Permalink]
|
In the name of fairness, Democrats performed pretty abysmally, too:One group of volunteers was shown a transcript of an ad created by NARAL Pro-Choice America that accused John G. Roberts Jr., President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court at the time, of 'supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber.'
...
Bullock then showed volunteers a refutation of the ad by abortion-rights supporters. He also told the volunteers that the advocacy group had withdrawn the ad. Although 56 percent of Democrats had originally disapproved of Roberts before hearing the misinformation, 80 percent of Democrats disapproved of the Supreme Court nominee afterward. Upon hearing the refutation, Democratic disapproval of Roberts dropped only to 72 percent. |
The number went down, but not nearly as much as one might like.
Though, I can sort of see the logic in it. After all, even if the Roberts canard was a canard, it is still the truth that he's anti-abortion. I wonder what the reaction would have been if, instead of the abortion question, they'd offered up some media smear that was even less grounded in reality. Say, that he claimed he'd been abducted by aliens.
My guess is that there would be a more dramatic return to the original opinion. At least, among Democrats!  |
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2008 : 17:43:14 [Permalink]
|
The media is a problem. It is also worth mention that most rural schools have cleared out all the books in the libraries and replaced them with media centers. Historical context has been purged, similar to Fahrenheit 451.
Conservatives have become captivated by pop culture, pop politics and have become mental zombies to entertainment radio and television, constantly eroding the underlying conservative philosophy and any connection to history.
Conservatives once held the Constitution to be a binding contract, interpreted literally and binding to all government. No wars except to protect the land and the people. Fiscally responsible, not laying debt and interest on posterity. Non interference in the affairs of other countries.
What a “conservative” is in this country today - is the vulgar opposite of what conservatism once was. The modern term “Conservative” is meaningless and abhorrent in historical context. With many new policies that could have been penned by Marx, others are clearly of fascists or communists bent, with an occasional touch of socialism to soften the touch.
Left, right, liberal – they are all meaningless terms in context to history. All now clamor to grow the state, ignore the Constitution and propose cures that are essentially identical to the disease. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2008 : 18:01:09 [Permalink]
|
To be even fairer, Cune, the next line after your quote is this:| Republican disapproval of Roberts rose after hearing the misinformation but vanished upon hearing the correct information. |
What seems to be missing from the article is any mention of Democrats being fed a positive lie, and then a refutation. The war-in-Iraq lie encouraged approval among Republicans, but the Roberts lie encouraged disapproval. They needed to include a lie that would make Democrats feel better about some liberal position, and see if the refutation of that led to increased approval, as it did among Republicans. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2008 : 19:11:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zeked
The media is a problem. It is also worth mention that most rural schools have cleared out all the books in the libraries and replaced them with media centers. Historical context has been purged, similar to Fahrenheit 451. |
Really? I just spent a few minutes looking at websites for rural school districts around where I grew up in Oklahoma. All the school libraries seem to still have books.
| Conservatives once held the Constitution to be a binding contract, interpreted literally and binding to all government. No wars except to protect the land and the people. Fiscally responsible, not laying debt and interest on posterity. Non interference in the affairs of other countries. |
We hear this a lot, but is it true? I don't find much in the above that applies to, say, Regan. Not sure about Ford. Nixon?
| What a “conservative” is in this country today - is the vulgar opposite of what conservatism once was. The modern term “Conservative” is meaningless and abhorrent in historical context. With many new policies that could have been penned by Marx, others are clearly of fascists or communists bent, with an occasional touch of socialism to soften the touch. |
Really? Tax cuts for the rich? De-regulation of industry? Efforts to insert Christianity into the public sphere as much as possible? That doesn't sounds very Marxist to me!
| Left, right, liberal – they are all meaningless terms in context to history. All now clamor to grow the state, ignore the Constitution and propose cures that are essentially identical to the disease. |
So liberals really want to "ignore the Constitution"? And what sorts of "liberal" solutions to problems are just as bad as the problems themselves?
I'll agree with your premise: the media are to blame for a lot. But the rest.... I dunno. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2008 : 22:15:07 [Permalink]
|
Cune said:
We hear this a lot, but is it true? I don't find much in the above that applies to, say, Regan. Not sure about Ford. Nixon?
|
Goldwater, et al. Last of the conservatives.
Nixon was a corrupt self interested douche-bag, Ford was a patsy. Reagan is the first neocon puppet, he may have had some actual independent authority (unlike the current Shrub-in-Chief), but his policy decisions were mostly handed to him by his neocon handlers. They picked a guy who was popular in CA, who was a natural speaker, and who had some marginal acting skills. He was more like a spokesman than an exec.
"Conservative" now, I agree with Zeked, means the opposite of what it once did. Smaller federal government, emphasis on states rights, personal privacy, government stays out of your personal life, sticking to the constitution closely (not literally, as that is impossible. Circumstances change, and so the rules we live by must be able to adapt) sticking to the spirit of the document, SECULAR government, and a few other things that today's conservatives would call the values of a fucking liberal pinko commie.
Goldwater was the last.
Not that the civil rights bill would have passed if Goldwater had been president... IIRC he wanted to refer the matter to individual states. He also, apparently, really hated Reagan and the social wedge politics. Seems he was strongly opposed to making things like abortion into political bludgeons.
Zeked said:
| Left, right, liberal – they are all meaningless terms in context to history. All now clamor to grow the state, ignore the Constitution and propose cures that are essentially identical to the disease. |
No one wants to ignore the constitution. Right wing extremists like Huckabee want to re-write it so it lines up with their interpretation of the christian bible. Far as I know this idea, and ignoring it, are antithetical to progressive liberals. Most of us want to protect the constitution, maintain the balance of powers, and maintain it as the law of the land.
As for your "cures identical to the disease", you are going to have to be specific on that one. What you have there is just empty rhetoric with no apparent basis in reality. So, some examples please?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 01:16:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
All the school libraries seem to still have books. |
While books are sometimes still in evidence, there has been a vigorous process called “weeding” that was accelerated and encouraged by the Department of Education through new policies and grants. The argument is shallow, but it was said it is ‘not a school library function to preserve literary heritage'.
Rural schools with more meager budgets have taken the library funds and not repurchased equivalent new bound literature, but have instead increased best sellers and popular magazines, and opt for a media center grant to fill the empty shelf space with PCs.
School libraries are restricted on overt removal to 'prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.' Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 872 (1982). What occurred appears more subversive, replacing history with pop culture through a process of excessive “weeding”. This makes younger generations more dependant on the current media for history and perspective.
Finding these purged books in dumpsters was bad, but finding American and world history or great literature like ‘The Works of Aristotle' in the dumpster was sickening. In the counties here in West Texas, there have been vast numbers of books that were discarded. Not donated or swapped, but discarded in dumpsters. One group of women here went around dumpster diving to save the books for prison donations.
I hope it is better in Oklahoma. But just ask your librarian if they think there is an agenda to get rid of print. It is not without precedent.
FROM: J. Albrecht, Director of the Department of Propaganda, Education and Culture [of the Central Committee of PUWP(1)]
J. Kowalczyk, Director of the Department of Education [of the Central Committee of PUWP]
TO: First Secretaries of the District Committees of PUWP(2)
The school and general libraries [in Poland] are still polluted with books whose content is politically harmful or hostile. The Council of Ministers and the Ministry of Culture have undertaken the task of purging the library collections. This work is to be performed in July, August and September of this year [1949].
The party cells are to conduct this action and make sure it is efficiently performed.
***
“Conservatives once held the Constitution to be a binding contract, interpreted literally and binding to all government.”
| We hear this a lot, but is it true? I don't find much in the above that applies to, say, Regan. Not sure about Ford. Nixon? |
I certainly don't hear it at all. Well lets see… Cleveland left office in 1897. It has been a while hasn't it. I guess the Goldwater folks were the last before the blatant Buckley subversion of the term. But even Goldwater seemed ok with some policing in the world. I think we have to go back before the New Deal.
| Really? Tax cuts for the rich? De-regulation of industry? Efforts to insert Christianity into the public sphere as much as possible? That doesn't sounds very Marxist to me! |
Glad you gave me a pass on fascism, socialism and communism. My rant could get wordy if I get going on Bismarck socialism. Authoritarianism was a Marx trademark, and I do hope you will not require modern US examples. This isn't a cop out, and I will provide if you want.
| So liberals really want to "ignore the Constitution"? And what sorts of "liberal" solutions to problems are just as bad as the problems themselves? |
It is our modern “liberal” judges tha |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 05:39:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Methinks that, from talking to my conservative parents and others, they automatically distrust anything that comes from the media or from scientists/intellectuals...they think that it is all liberal bias. It is anti-confirmation-bias.
|
The right-wing propaganda community has been working very hard to seed mistrust of intellectuals and the educated in general as a means to win elections. Universities, the scientific community in general, and reputable news organizations are actually the "liberal elite" with an agenda to manipulate and deceive. It's a war against objectivity and rationalism and their success is frightening. One wonders - and cringes - what the longer term fallout of this might be... |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 09/18/2008 05:41:17 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 06:59:01 [Permalink]
|
Zeked said:
They do completely ignore the fact they are not allowed to legislate from the bench.
|
I'm going to have to take issue with this claim.
Our judicial system was inherited from the old common law system that existed in Europe (and here) long before there was a constitution.
As part of a judges responsibility they must decide how to apply a law. Interpretation is their intended function.
All this bullshit about "legislating from the bench" is little more than moronic hyperbole. The only people who use the phrase are those who disagree with a judicial interpretation.
Most of this stems from Roe V Wade. "Conservatives" think the SCOTUS overstepped it's authority, so they have been attacking judges they don't like, and who make decisions they don't like, ever since.
As for the constitution being a "living document"... well, it has to be one. There are no provisions in the constitution that provide guidance for how to govern in a world where globalization is the driving force behind most economies.
Nerve gas, cluster bombs, napalm, the M1A1, weaponized anthrax, and nuclear bombs... a literal reading of the constitution would (back off you 2nd amendment haters...) mean private citizens should be allowed to own these things. You'll have to forgive me, a fervent supported of private gun ownership, if I think that such things were never even imagined by the writers of the constitution and the document can not deal with them. So laws have to change. There are other examples of things the constitution isn't capable of dealing with as well. So it MUST be considered a "living document", and we must attempt to apply the spirit and intent to our new circumstances.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 07:34:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Nerve gas, cluster bombs, napalm, the M1A1, weaponized anthrax, and nuclear bombs... a literal reading of the constitution would (back off you 2nd amendment haters...) mean private citizens should be allowed to own these things. You'll have to forgive me, a fervent supported of private gun ownership, if I think that such things were never even imagined by the writers of the constitution and the document can not deal with them. So laws have to change. There are other examples of things the constitution isn't capable of dealing with as well. So it MUST be considered a "living document", and we must attempt to apply the spirit and intent to our new circumstances.
|
Just to add my 2 cents...
First, before the shouting starts, I favor personal gun ownership, within reason, and with sensible regulation. But the Constitution clearly does not protect weapon ownership by the private citizen just for the sake of owning weapons. That provision in the 2nd Amendment was strictly targeted to calm State's concerns that the Federal government would allow them to have militias but nullify those militias by forbidding citizens to possess weapons. The ammendment made sure the state militia would have teeth should it be needed to protect the state from the Federal government, rampaging Indians, or aggressive neighboring states.
Fast forward to the present . . . .
There are no state militias. This provision of the Constitution is obsolete. However, the current sitting SCOTUS, for inexplicable reasons, abandoned their conservative principles and court precedence and effectively ammended the constitution by claiming the provision actually does refer to personal gun ownership for any damn reason. Activist conservative judges....
It's not the effect of the ruling that pisses me off - I never once thought gun owership would be seriously threatened in the US. But the hypocracy and bad law of the SCOTUS - does ANYBODY have integrity anymore??? |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 08:30:26 [Permalink]
|
Zeked, your discussion of school libraries sounds rather conspiratorial. It also sounds rather anecdotal. You talk about "an agenda to get rid of print" but this suggests that schools in Texas have loads of books. The modern world demands that children learn how to use computer and on-line material as well as books, and so a shift towards that is clear and necessary. But nothing I've read suggests any anti-print agenda.
Your anecdote about finding old books in dumpsters is sad-- donating them would have been ideal. But you make it sound like getting rid of some 1960's text on world history is tragic. I say the opposite. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, it's likely that a school library purging its collection of old texts is going to replace them with up-to-date texts.
Your reaction isn't without precedent, either:| For K-12 librarians, it's a no-brainer to toss a book that's full of outdated, often politically incorrect information. But they say it's a public relations nightmare when taxpayers find out librarians actually toss out books. |
Anyhow...
| Really? Tax cuts for the rich? De-regulation of industry? Efforts to insert Christianity into the public sphere as much as possible? That doesn't sounds very Marxist to me! |
Glad you gave me a pass on fascism, socialism and communism. My rant could get wordy if I get going on Bismarck socialism. Authoritarianism was a Marx trademark, and I do hope you will not require modern US examples. This isn't a cop out, and I will provide if you want. |
Well, I skipped socialism and communism because I don't think that they, like Marxism, ever called for tax cuts for the rich, de-regulation of industry, or efforts to insert Christianity into the public sphere as much as possible.
There are obviously many forms of socialism and communism, but I doubt many people hear "tax cuts for the rich" and think "how communist!" or "how socialist!", right?
But yes, it's not hard to see fascist elements in the current administration.
Re "liberal" judges and the Constitution-- I agree with Dude's comments above. I am curious about your assertion that| Most of what modern liberals want from the Federal Government is unconstitutional. The Tenth Amendment forbids the Federal Government to exercise any powers not specifically assigned to it in the Constitution. |
What do "most modern liberals" want from the federal government? And I'd say that the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment is tricky, at best.
Re the AIG bailout-- it seems to be a rather unique situation. And it seems from the accounts I've read that if AIG really were allowed to collapse on its own, it would have been bad:A frenzied effort to prop up the American International Group, the ailing insurance giant, had failed. The Fed had decided it had no choice but to do the unthinkable: bail out A.I.G. with an $85 billion loan or risk a potential financial catastrophe of unknown proportions. ...
Among the points highlighted for lawmakers was that A.I.G. was one of the 10 most widely held stocks in 401(k) retirement plans, and that its collapse could potentially cause an en |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 09:28:31 [Permalink]
|
Our libraries are great. Maybe that's one reason why California is solidly blue...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 09:48:41 [Permalink]
|
This article belongs in this thread based on the premise of the OP.
McCain Reverts to Tax Attack
In politics, the more things change the more they stay the same.
With less than seven weeks remaining before the November presidential election, John McCain is turning to a tried and true tactic: attacking Barack Obama as a serial tax raiser who favors a "massive government".
McCain makes the case in a new ad released this morning:
"Obama and his liberal congressional allies want a massive government," insists the ad's narrator, adding that the Illinois senator favors "billions in spending increases" including "painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil."
"Can your family afford that?" the narrator asks at the commercial's close.
McCain's campaign is also held a conference call today focused on the economy with the stated purpose of exploring Obama's "claims that paying higher taxes is 'patriotic'".
On that call, McCain senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin alleged that Obama has voted to raise taxes 94 times in the U.S. Senate and had proposed more than $800 billion in additional spending during the presidential campaign. "He has no credibility in his promises," insisted Holtz-Eakin.
The tax attack is not only rooted in decades of successful Republican campaigns -- from the statehouse to the White House -- but also backed by polling that seems to show people believe Obama would raise their taxes... |
I have noticed that every single talking head for McPalin has insisted that Obama will raise taxes on everyone. They know it's a false accusation, but they just keep repeating it, hoping it will stick. I've seen anchors call them on it and they just repeat it again. And again... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 09:59:34 [Permalink]
|
| Hoping it will stick? Knowing it will stick. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Conservatives are...
