The Science of Fox News: Why Its Viewers are the Most Misinformed

[PiggyBank]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

Guys like brASS are really the people in society who scare me. He is probably one of the people you would see down at an occupy rally with all his other buddies espousing the joys of communism. Then when confronted about what a disaster communism has been and how many deaths it has caused, he would be one of the ones to say "well that wasnt really communism"

These guys honestly believe in some communist utopia that they can impose on society, but this time it it going to be different. Of course communism is batting a whopping 0% throughout history, but these guys actually think this time it is going to end up differently.

There is an army of uninformed communists like brASS living out there who want to convert the U.S. to communism, and they think that they are so goddamn smart, that this time it will end up differently.

Good vid.. some people just don't learn from history. I agree with you the people that are aware they are wrong, but twist reality to serve their agenda, are the real threat.. I don't know if t-dog is part of that group or not, but Obama almost certainly is. If you have to lie about the system that you endorse to the degree where you are describing it as the opposite of what it actually is, then you are only seeking power. No one would lie to this degree if they actually believed that their idea held up in contrast to what they are trying to replace.

I still can't get over possibly sane individuals calling communism right-wing. The lies are just getting more and more ridiculous and frequent. This is especially fucking retarded.

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from Tom B:

+1

I am amazed that the fact that Stalin and Mao were communists is up for debate. Is this the path the left will use to re-write history. I hope not, otherwise, it will be difficult to have an intellectually honest debate about any subject.

Well put

 

[Brass]

Your various responses are a reflection of your inability to confront your closely-held beliefs and to break down them down into their component parts for better scrutiny. And until you do so, you will be little more than a parrot. You run into problems when you equate socialism with communism, and unregulated capitalism with democracy. If you want true democracy and capitalism, then you should consider social capitalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capitalism

There is no real and lasting freedom at the extremes. At either extreme, the few control and manipulate the majority, with a distinction in labels amounting to no more than a hill of beans.

All of the authoritarian regimes discussed thus far (Mussolini's, Hitler's, Stalin's and Mao's) are all about hiearchy. Hierarchy is very much a Right Wing thing:

In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist has been defined as the support or acceptance of social hierarchy. Inequality is viewed by the Right as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, whether it arises though traditional social differences, or from competition in market economies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

Stalin's "equality" schtick was as illusory as the Right's "soon-to-have" pablum for the disenfranchised poor. It keeps people in their (hierarchical) place, hoping and waiting for betterment that never comes.

Unregulated economies exaggerate the hierarchy until you reach an extreme. And remember what I just said about extremes: There is no real and lasting freedom at the extremes. At either extreme, the few control and manipulate the majority, with a distinction in labels amounting to no more than a hill of beans.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Seems that in today's world a difference of opinion now passes for mis-informed. Anyone relying on network news of any stripe is not only mis-informed, one could argue that they are completley uninformed.

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from Brass:

Your various responses are a reflection of your inability to confront your closely-held beliefs and to break down them down into their component parts for better scrutiny. And until you do so, you will be little more than a parrot. You run into problems when you equate socialism with communism, and unregulated capitalism with democracy. If you want true democracy and capitalism, then you should consider social capitalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capitalism

There is no real and lasting freedom at the extremes. At either extreme, the few control and manipulate the majority, with a distinction in labels amounting to no more than a hill of beans.

All of the authoritarian regimes discussed thus far (Mussolini's, Hitler's, Stalin's and Mao's) are all about hiearchy. Hierarchy is very much a Right Wing thing:

In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist has been defined as the support or acceptance of social hierarchy. Inequality is viewed by the Right as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, whether it arises though traditional social differences, or from competition in market economies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

Stalin's "equality" schtick was as illusory as the Right's "soon-to-have" pablum for the disenfranchised poor. It keeps people in their (hierarchical) place, hoping and waiting for betterment that never comes.

Unregulated economies exaggerate the hierarchy until you reach an extreme. And remember what I just said about extremes: There is no real and lasting freedom at the extremes. At either extreme, the few control and manipulate the majority, with a distinction in labels amounting to no more than a hill of beans.

All of those regimes are about power of the state and varying degrees of control over the population, all authoritarian and all self identified as communism or socialism, which are NOT right wing. It doesn't matter that none of them ever turned over the means of production to the labor force, their economic policies were left - at least in contrast to the US where the means of production are privatized. The state usurping private ownership of ANYTHING, directly or indirectly, is a leftist/socialist/communist policy, regardless of whether the state or labor force assumes control. Also, no system in which private property is essentially stolen is plausible in America. The right to private property is granted by the Constitution. For people who feel otherwise, I suggest leaving the US... there are plenty of socialist or communist countries in the world. This just ain't one of 'em, even though it is getting closer with shit like GM.

Which brings us to "social-capitalism", this is essentially what we have in the US at this point and it is not working. The bailout/stimulus/qe are all the same garbage. The federal govt has no business supporting private industry with tax revenue, that isn't free market. If there were no bailouts the economy likely wouldn't be any worse than it is now, and we wouldn't have amassed more debt and inflation due to printing money.. our economy is basically stagnant. Sure if there was no bailout it would have been worse in the short term, Capitalism is bigger swings and better results over time. That will most likely no longer be the case if we continue on this path of changing our system to be more like the systems that we have outpaced in the past, systems which also aren't sustainable.

Free market Capitalism works and it isn't at odds with individual freedom, unlike left wing socialism and communism.

 

[Brass]

Quote from PiggyBank:

...

Sorry, Piggy, but you're just being a parrot:

Quote from Brass:

Your various responses are a reflection of your inability to confront your closely-held beliefs and to break down them down into their component parts for better scrutiny. And until you do so, you will be little more than a parrot...

You're not thinking things through. You are merely repeating what you have been told without any of your own critical input. You have failed to address in a meaningful way any of the salient points in my post which you quoted, so I fail to see the point of your having quoted it at all. All you did was present the usual collection of conservative clichés. You just phoned it in.

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from Brass:

Sorry, Piggy, but you're just being a parrot:

You're not thinking things through. You are merely repeating what you have been told without any of your own critical input. You have failed to address in a meaningful way any of the salient points in my post which you quoted, so I fail to see the point of your having quoted it at all. All you did was present the usual collection of conservative clichés. You just phoned it in.

what in my post is incorrect?

and I quoted you because you are still claiming that real world, self-identified, socialist and communist regimes are right wing.. and that is simply bullshit. You can make all of the arguments that you want that they didn't implement it correctly, or they were only socialist/communist in name but not practice etc, but it doesn't change the fact that they aren't right wing. Also what govt/political system EVER has not had a social hierarchy? and why is it a bad thing in your opinion? please let me know where you think you are on the political/economic spectrum, and me as well.

 

[Brass]

Quote from PiggyBank:

what in my post is incorrect?

and I quoted you because you are still claiming that real world, self-identified, socialist and communist regimes are right wing.. and that is simply bullshit. You can make all of the arguments that you want that they didn't implement it correctly, or they were only socialist/communist in name but not practice etc, but it doesn't change the fact that they aren't right wing. Also what govt/political system EVER has not had a social hierarchy? and why is it a bad thing in your opinion? please let me know where you think you are on the political spectrum, and me as well.

Social hierarchy is the very essence of Right Wing, which I noted earlier:

In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist has been defined as the support or acceptance of social hierarchy.[1][2][3] Inequality is viewed by the Right as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1] whether it arises though traditional social differences,[4] or from competition in market economies.[5][6]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

And, as we have seen, all of the dictatorial regimes under discussion were very much about hierarchy. The more extreme, the more hierarchical, with the relative few controlling and manipulating the majority.

True Left Wing is much more egalitarian:

In politics, the Left, left-wing and leftists are people or views which support social change to create a more egalitarian society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

Egalitarianism:

Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.

http://www.answers.com/topic/egalitarianism

Egalitarianism is the very antithesis of authoritarianism. Therefore, no dictatorial regime is truly Left Wing. Don't allow yourself to get drawn into the hype.

And in response to your question, I consider myself to be center left: social liberal and fiscal conservative. Please don't ask me to explain it further, as I have already done so in the past and more than once.

 

[Epic]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Seems that in today's world a difference of opinion now passes for mis-informed. Anyone relying on network news of any stripe is not only mis-informed, one could argue that they are completley uninformed.

+1

 

[Epic]

Are we not willing to consider the idea that the existence of both "right" and "left" is necessary to prevent the undesirable aspects of either ideology from running amok?