[Rupert]

Yeah, ...this is a *real* problem and has been all along.

Fox News is a bad guy to a lot of the country precisely *because* people come away from it *actively disinformed,* even about the very text of things they are voting for.

Polling just keeps showing that: people who are convinced they need to vote or show support *one* way actually are simply factually incorrect, ...and the same polls will show that 'if' they were properly informed, they'd in fact vote the other way.

There simply can't be much in the way of reasoned consensus when people are dealing with two separate sets of 'facts' to begin with. That's before we even *get* to opinions or ideology.

Can't say I disagree with any of it Ratlady......isn't that Amazing! Other than being right on target, you..
*Kept to the subject at hand
*Didn't bash Christians or Fundies
*Didn't plead your case for the sufferings of LGBT's
*Remained reasonable and truthful

So now that we know you are capable of being a reasonable and logical poster....the question is....why don't you try this more often?
Regards!

[apisto]

I understand the sentiment here but this is a "chicken or the egg" conundrum. If you have a group of like thinkers; do they each think what they think because that's what he others in the group think or are they a group because they each happen to think the same things? Two or more people thinking the same thing does not necessarily mean they did not form those thoughts independently of each other.

This is a great point. My perception is that there are many more eggs than chickens. That is, I know for a fact that there are many people out there who are informed, contemplative people. And I respect those people, whether they agree with my views on issues or not. I do feel, however, that far to many people let their minds be made up for them by others.

Yeah, ...this is a *real* problem and has been all along.

Fox News is a bad guy to a lot of the country precisely *because* people come away from it *actively disinformed,* even about the very text of things they are voting for.

I regard it as a mistake to label that phenomenom as just a Fox News problem. (not that you are nessecarily doing so) The problem is across the board for the most part, Fox News just happens to get the most attention for it.

[B Grace]

Apisto, you are spot on correct about the vast group of folks in the US who make up the center. The folks like me who are right of center but not extremist far-right and folks like my wife who are left of center but not extremist far-left are the voters who determine election outcomes.

It's common for many in the US to claim George Bush barely won the 2004 election while Barak Obama won the 2008 election in a landslide, and it's true based on electoral college results, but the actual popular vote numbers show a spread of less than five percentage points with GWB receiving 50.7% of the popular vote in 2004 and BHO receiving 52.9% of the popular vote in 2008. If this is not lost upon our elected folks now would be a good time for everyone to start working together better.

[apisto]

Apisto, you are spot on correct about the vast group of folks in the US who make up the center. The folks like me who are right of center but not extremist far-right and folks like my wife who are left of center but not extremist far-left are the voters who determine election outcomes.

Unfortunately, the discourse is defined by the extremes. And I do not really know what to do about that.

It's common for many in the US to claim George Bush barely won the 2004 election while Barak Obama won the 2008 election in a landslide, and it's true based on electoral college results, but the actual popular vote numbers show a spread of less than five percentage points with GWB receiving 50.7% of the popular vote in 2004 and BHO receiving 52.9% of the popular vote in 2008. If this is not lost upon our elected folks now would be a good time for everyone to start working together better.

Truthfully I am not holding my breath. I am both a idealist and cynic by nature. These two sides fight within me. And although my interpretation may be flawed, what I see in the political process strengthens my cynical side. To many politicians, especially national one, place personal and party gain, prestige and power over that which is goood for the country and the people. To those politicians the current political climate could be seen as a good thing.

[Ratmagiclady]

Most polls show exactly what the entity conducting them wants them to show.

The ones which are effectively quizzes on the actual denotations of the material at hand, though, not so much.

If people *believe* that a bill or law they are voting for or against says something which it does not.... If they further say that 'if' it said what it actually does, they'd take the opposite position, That's not something you can really 'spin.'

That's evidence of a disinformed population.

[Parallax]

The ones which are effectively quizzes on the actual denotations of the material at hand, though, not so much.

If people *believe* that a bill or law they are voting for or against says something which it does not.... If they further say that 'if' it said what it actually does, they'd take the opposite position, That's not something you can really 'spin.'

That's evidence of a disinformed population.

You can though, by the way questions in the poll are worded manipulate how people relate what they think they know to the question.

I don't always understand everything I think I know.

[Ratmagiclady]

Can't say I disagree with any of it Ratlady......isn't that Amazing! Other than being right on target, you..
*Kept to the subject at hand
*Didn't bash Christians or Fundies
*Didn't plead your case for the sufferings of LGBT's
*Remained reasonable and truthful

So now that we know you are capable of being a reasonable and logical poster....the question is....why don't you try this more often?
Regards!

Again, this is you miraculously 'understanding' the same person you 'can't understand' but still claim you can *judge* (And defame) whenever she *says something you don't like.*

It only shows you either can't or won't process information you don't already agree with. Which is, after all, that problem of the 'Opinion Age' and anti-science. Anti-reason, anti-intellectualism, anti-*empathy.*

All it proves is that if you don't *like* something, you call someone else a 'liar.' And feel entitled to 'try and 'destroy.' '

You feel you have the right to *bash* LBGTs and non-Christians, but think you're in a position to demand I never question you, or posit any actual life experience that gives the lie to your claims that what *you* demand in these regards is both 'righteous,' 'absolute truth,' and 'not harming anyone, but you deserve it.' You've *literally* said that you , in your own words, 'punching me' is my fault for being around for you to 'punch' while playing the 'victim' yourself. (While of course saying it's not you doing what you do, but 'God.' Not only is that an all too common abuser's mentality, it's also called an 'external locus of control' in psychology. It's not a good sign.)

You still get backwards, Rupert.

---------- Post added 03-28-2010 at 12:58 PM ----------

You can though, by the way questions in the poll are worded manipulate how people relate what they think they know to the question.

I don't always understand everything I think I know.

This is possible, yes. Common, even. Pervasive, in fact. But that doesn't mean the 'polls' I refer to *in this case* are based on anything but the *actual texts of the actual laws actually in question.*

Or other matters of actual verifiable fact. "Was President Obama born in the United States. Does President Obama say he's a Muslim." Fox news viewers poll out as *consistently incorrect* on all these things.

---

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 03-28-2010 at 11:02 AM.

[séamuis]

I face palmed so many times watching this video... I mean seriously? seriously?

"Fox News."

[Rupert]

Again, this is you miraculously 'understanding' the same person you 'can't understand' but still claim you can *judge* (And defame) whenever she *says something you don't like.*
Here you go again Ratlady......showing your insanity!

It only shows you either can't or won't process information you don't already agree with. Which is, after all, that problem of the 'Opinion Age' and anti-science. Anti-reason, anti-intellectualism, anti-*empathy.*
I processed what you said in the above post, so am I to now believe that because I did, it was just more trash? That is, after all what you are saying here.....that I can only process trash.....


All it proves is that if you don't *like* something, you call someone else a 'liar.' And feel entitled to 'try and 'destroy.' '
You are a proven liar, so wear it Ratlady, I proved it at least five times in the last few days....there is absolutely no question regarding it....but you appear to keep wanting people to go back and see it for themselves.....why is that? You do love to suffer, don't you?

You feel you have the right to *bash* LBGTs and non-Christians, but think you're in a position to demand I never question you, or posit any actual life experience that gives the lie to your claims that what *you* demand in these regards is both 'righteous,' 'absolute truth,' and 'not harming anyone, but you deserve it.' You've *literally* said that you , in your own words, 'punching me' is my fault for being around for you to 'punch' while playing the 'victim' yourself. (While of course saying it's not you doing what you do, but 'God.' Not only is that an all too common abuser's mentality, it's also called an 'external locus of control' in psychology. It's not a good sign.)
Yes, I have every right to bash LBGT's, no doubt about it! The thing that really bothers you is that I don't...I just point out your rants against Christians and Fundies, an the fact that you have lied concerning them taking your daughter from you, when in fact you admitted right here that you abandoned her......and then that she wasn't even your daughter.....let the facts speak for themselves Ratlady! You are the false accuser here, all can see it.


You still get backwards, Rupert.
Is backwards still better than Evil Ratlady?

---------- Post added 03-28-2010 at 12:58 PM ----------



This is possible, yes. Common, even. Pervasive, in fact. But that doesn't mean the 'polls' I refer to *in this case* are based on anything but the *actual texts of the actual laws actually in question.*

Or other matters of actual verifiable fact. "Was President Obama born in the United States. Does President Obama say he's a Muslim." Fox news viewers poll out as *consistently incorrect* on all these things.

Stick to the subject at hand Ratlady and stop trying to come after me......your success rate will remain at zero as long as you do. No one likes a liar, and to keep it in front of people is not helping your cause...
Regards!

---------- Post added 03-28-2010 at 02:21 PM ----------

You can though, by the way questions in the poll are worded manipulate how people relate what they think they know to the question.

I don't always understand everything I think I know.

Come on Jim, be honest here, the people in that vid were just plain dumb. There was little or no manipulation of the questions....they were mostly straightforward and simple. Unlike the "trick question" Katie asked Sarah regarding "what do you read"?
I sure don't place you in the group of fruitloops in the vid...but if you are telling me that they were "tricked" by the interviewer, I will have to reconsider......before you respond, maybe you should view it once more?
Best Regards!

---------- Post added 03-28-2010 at 02:24 PM ----------

I face palmed so many times watching this video... I mean seriously? seriously?

"Fox News."

Seriously......yes, that is the problem...these people were serious....kind of scary, isn't it? And Bachman was proud to tell us these were the brightest people on the right....God help the dumbest! God help America!
Regards!

[redrockcoulee]

I think the important point about those who were being interviewed, these were not people being polled selected randomly, but folks who took the time and effort to go to a particular location to protest against a specific piece of legislation. Regardless if you are on the right wing side with the Republicans or on the near right wing with the Democrats, the people interviewed were not the least bit knowledgable about what the health care reform bill actually is supposed to do and what it does not do. They seemed much more fearful and angry than informed and that is not a healthly debate.


For most polling there is little to be gained by having loaded questions. Imagine trying to decide how to market a product (corportation) or a policy (governments or oppositions) based on a poll that was skrewed to show resutls you wanted. Total waste of money. For a lobby group trying to influence public perspection I loaded poll would be of use.

[Ratmagiclady]

For most polling there is little to be gained by having loaded questions. Imagine trying to decide how to market a product (corportation) or a policy (governments or oppositions) based on a poll that was skrewed to show resutls you wanted. Total waste of money. For a lobby group trying to influence public perspection I loaded poll would be of use.

*That* assumes the intention is to give people what they want, rather than to make them think they want what you're selling.

Or more to the point, what you're trying to *oppose.* If the point is to get a lot of people screaming "Keep the government out of my Medicare!" well, misleading 'polls' serve the confusion.

[Parallax]

Come on Jim, be honest here, the people in that vid were just plain dumb. There was little or no manipulation of the questions....
Regards!

My comment wasn't with regard to the video. I haven't even watched it. Judging from other people's comments on it, I don't think I can bear to. My point was that the results of a poll are as reliable a reflection of reality as the words of politicians, newscasters, and weather men.

[Rupert]

My comment wasn't with regard to the video. I haven't even watched it. Judging from other people's comments on it, I don't think I can bear to. My point was that the results of a poll are as reliable a reflection of reality as the words of politicians, newscasters, and weather men.

Hey Jim! Go watch it...I know you love a good joke and this is as good as most Aggie jokes can get.....maybe better, because we know it is real!

In all fairness, which I hope is not noticed here....I won't let it happen often, I promise.......you could do the same with a group of Democrat wingnuts as was done in this Vid. My friend with the coffee cup "I See Dumb People" is constantly asked "what does that mean"?
What it means is that there is no shortage of pure un-Pasteurized ignorance in America. Left or Right...we can all see that! View the Vid! It is hilarious!


Maybe this has happened to you.....I was in a Convenience Store recently and bought some gum...the total was .97 cents. I gave the clerk, a girl about 19-22 a dollar and two pennies....to get an nickel back......but she failed to punch in "Amount Tendered" The line behind me was held up for five minutes while she first attempted to do a mental calculation, then asked me and didn't trust my answer, then called the Mgr at home to find the correct amount to give me. Is this uncommon? You already know the answer to that..... so go watch the Vid and enjoy! No need to phony up such things in America!
Best Regards!

[Ratmagiclady]

And, Rupert:

Is backwards still better than Evil Ratlady?

'Better than?' What's that supposed to mean.

To say you and many others espousing what you say 'get backwards' ....Is an observation. You do and say and behave in ways that are the *opposite* of what you *claim* to represent and speak for. People can evaluate that.

'Evil' is merely an accusation: a mere *insistence.* In your case, among many others, like 'crazy,' 'unintelligible,' 'liar' etc, that simply mean 'Not agreeing with Rupert.'

[Rupert]

And, Rupert:



'Better than?' What's that supposed to mean.

To say you and many others espousing what you say 'get backwards' ....Is an observation. You do and say and behave in ways that are the *opposite* of what you *claim* to represent and speak for. People can evaluate that.

'Evil' is merely an accusation: a mere *insistence.* In your case, among many others, like 'crazy,' 'unintelligible,' 'liar' etc, that simply mean 'Not agreeing with Rupert.'

One more time Ratlady.....maybe you will learn to stay away from this, but I doubt it.

When a sick pervert kidnaps a young girl from her home, mutilates her body in horrific ways not even mentionable here, rapes her, then takes the life from her little innocent body, robbing her of all future joy and happiness.....most people call that sick bastard EVIL. You call him "Backwards Thinking".
Your reasoning is apparently to lessen the severity of the crime by using a euphemistic term to replace EVIL, thereby lessening the severity of the views many of those in America and the world that see your lifestyle as sick and disgusting. I think you fail , and have asked you to take my above example story on the streets of your town and read it to random people and ask for a description of the person doing this perverted act and then report back to us the number of times they used EVIL vs "Backward Thinking". So far you have been silent? Have you done this, and if so, are you ready to give us your report?
Beast Regards!

BTW- The EVIL bastard in this story is no longer with us. He tried to sell your "Backward Thinking" here but all it got him was a needle and a long deep sleep.