It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Poll: Liberals, Democrats flunk Economics 101

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by indianajoe77
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


One, the correct source was posted.


One, the first two lines of the OP read

Poll: Liberals, Democrats flunk Economics 101

Source: MichaelSavage.com June 08, 2010


I was responding to that. Maybe you missed it?


The article did not originate with Savage, but The Wall street Journal.


That Kevin Trudeau crap he shovels does not originate with him either but I know enough of Weiner's practices to know when I hear HIM talking about it, it is not likely based in reality.

I was well aware it did not originate with Weiner, he is not smart enough to come up with a poll like that. Besides, it is clearly stated. The problem is that when someone like Weiner is the one promoting it, it is automatically suspect to anyone familiar with his lack of interest in facts. I am pretty sure you know that because you said it to the OP yourself so shhhhh.


Two, the book's title is "Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder". If your going to be sarcastic and insulting, get your info correct atleast.


LMAO! Yeah, that makes it better. Thanks for correcting that. I guess it is his yelling that it is a disease in his cutaways every night that got me confused as to whether he wrote a book calling liberals sick or nuts. LOL. Did you really just intend that as some kind of correction? Maybe I did not feel like actually promoting his book


So sorry I said disease when it was mental disorder. Totally different. Thanks for making that important distinction. Copies available at your local bookseller now! Right next to "Debt cures from a criminal."



And really, there are no biased sources in the news on the left like Olbermann and Madoww?


Wow, show up with a muddy mirror so the best you can do is toss mud around the room and hope it gets someone else's mirror too? I do not recall saying anything about the left, MSNBC, or either of those people.

Are you honestly trying to argue that I should be more open to biased talk from the right because talk on the left is biased too? How about I take none of them at their word and you go ahead and stay in their little game and decide to believe Savage, not because he tells the truth, because you do not trust Maddow. Really?


C'mon man, they are all biased one way or another, and that way is usually whomever is signing the checks.


All of them? Who are "they?" It sounds like you feel you have no choice but to let someone tell you what to think and since you know they are both biased, you chose one lie over another. I do not need any of them to tell me what to think but hey, good for you, I guess.


By the way, this is why I said it's important to cite the original souce, not a 2nd or 3rd.


By the way, I know and that was the OP's problem, not mine. By the way, since you know what the source problem is, why did you waste time addressing it with me?




posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by guohua
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 

I see you have nothing to add the thread itself, only to belittle the source an OP.


I added the point that your source is extremely biased and known to be afraid of facts and reality. Did you want an essay?


You think all things coming from any source leaning right is degrading to your school of thought?


Did I say anything like that?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Source of the original story and study

econjwatch.org...

Second source and WSJ article written by co author of study.

online.wsj.com...

The first and original source was cited in the OP for gods sake and people still want to harp on Savage. Nothing else to discuss today??

That's how liberals respond!! They ignore all facts and details


Study to follow soon!!!!! ATS is full of material and evidence.
Just a joke of course!! No offense to those liberals without a sense of humor.
Just another joke!! Save you flaming for your failing President. Just a joke!!



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
Source of the original story and study

econjwatch.org...

Second source and WSJ article written by co author of study.

online.wsj.com...

The first and original source was cited in the OP for gods sake and people still want to harp on Savage. Nothing else to discuss today??


If you were paying attention, we read it. We got all that. In fact, is it the people defending the poll that seem to have gotten it wrong. The OP is the one crediting Savage first. Subsequent posters defending it are crediting WSJ. Why are you not explaining how right wingers cannot read the things even they post?


That's how liberals respond!! They ignore all facts and details


Did not even bother to read this then?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by guohua

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by guohua
 


Stopped reading at "Source: MichaelSavage.com"


Really?

Narrow minded or Afraid?
I read left leaning web sites. To help keep things balanced.


I listen to that nutjob all the time...so that is how I know not to take anything he says (or is associated with) seriously.


But I did read through the article...and like I guessed...it is a joke.

These aren't right/wrong questions...these are questions that the answers will depend on what school of thought you subscribe to.

The "researcher" knows this...it's a hit piece to influence people who are easy to manipulate (read: YOU).

The answers to the questions are not "right" or "wrong"...they will in fact show which direction you are leaning. And the "researcher" nicely declare all left leaning answers as "wrong"...in his opinion. If this was done by a left leaning researcher...he would of labeled all the right leaning answers as "wrong"...and BOOM...then all right wingers flunk this "econ" quiz.

Here is a perfect example from the "quiz"

5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree).


So if I think that workers are being exploited for profits...then I am "wrong" and I have flunked "econ 101"???? So the only way to pass this test is to agree that companies should do ANYTHING for a profit???



Do you really not see what is at play here? Or do you just willingly eat it up without a thought?

[edit on 8-6-2010 by OutKast Searcher]



Study to follow soon!!!!! ATS is full of material and evidence.
Just a joke of course!! No offense to those liberals without a sense of humor.
Just another joke!! Save you flaming for your failing President. Just a joke!!


Was it funny?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Whoa. Let's cool this down a second.

I don't take any of these talking heads as blindly as you imply.

In fact, I'm offended at the mis-informed attack on my character.

My only interest in this entire post was to correct the source information. Anyone who understands how to read a study can see the questions are loaded. I also alerted the OP to that fact that posters who exhibit behavior, like your's in the post, will disregard anything that comes from certain sources. That does not help to facilitate a discussion. You provided the perfect example.

Your only contribution was to attack the proxy source.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by indianajoe77
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Whoa. Let's cool this down a second.

I don't take any of these talking heads as blindly as you imply.


Tell you what. Since it was you that brought up talking heads as some comparison of what the left would be listening to, I have no clue what you think you are saying. Maybe show me where I made this implication and we can go from there.

What I see, you brought up other talking heads in order to make Savage look less bad.

I only mentioned Savage in this regard.

You say I implied something that I am not sure I even ever thought.

Want to cool down and have a nice chat? Start by being honest.
Do that, and I will be happy to respond further.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11
Here is the actual Intro to the Survey..


A number of controversial interpretive issues attend our measure, including: (1) our designation of enlightened answers; (2) an asymmetry in sometimes challenging leftist mentalities without ever specifically challenging conservative and libertarian mentalities; (3) our simple eight-question test is merely a baseline and does not gauge the heights of economic enlightenment; and (4) a concern about response bias (namely, that less intelligent people would be less likely to participate in the survey).

econjwatch.org...

From the Actual Survey..in PDF on the page above


Here again we should acknowledge that none of the eight questions
challenge typical conservative or libertarian policy positions, and that had some such questions been included, the measured economic-enlightenment means by ideological groups may well have been somewhat different.


A survey, by it's own admission, that is tailored to show a weakness in those leaning left will show just that.

Carry on with the circus of idiotic rhetoric....


Why has this post been ignored?!

Deny Ignorance? Is this ringing any bells with anyone?

This poll was skewed from the start. There was no way this poll would have produced any other results.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



Here's where you implied it:

Are you honestly trying to argue that I should be more open to biased talk from the right because talk on the left is biased too? How about I take none of them at their word and you go ahead and stay in their little game and decide to believe Savage, not because he tells the truth, because you do not trust Maddow. Really?


C'mon man, they are all biased one way or another, and that way is usually whomever is signing the checks.



All of them? Who are "they?" It sounds like you feel you have no choice but to let someone tell you what to think and since you know they are both biased, you chose one lie over another. I do not need any of them to tell me what to think but hey, good for you, I guess

Enough already. You hate and distrust Savage, we get it.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 


That post was ignored because this thread is all about spreading propaganda...not about looking at facts.

No one will adress that post or my post showing how biased this "poll" was.

That is just the way things work here on ATS.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by indianajoe77
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



Here's where you implied it:

Are you honestly trying to argue that I should be more open to biased talk from the right because talk on the left is biased too? How about I take none of them at their word and you go ahead and stay in their little game and decide to believe Savage, not because he tells the truth, because you do not trust Maddow. Really?


Not seeing it. Maybe you need to be reminded. You said

I don't take any of these talking heads as blindly as you imply.


I still never said that you did. I told you to go back and believe Savage, he is the one you are defending. You brought up Maddow and "other talking heads" not me.

Are you not defending Savage? If not then I am not sure what you point is. It looks to me like you are. You defend Savage, then go ahead and be his little sheep. That has nothing to do with me making any claim about you just blindly following talking "heads."

Get it?



C'mon man, they are all biased one way or another, and that way is usually whomever is signing the checks.



All of them? Who are "they?" It sounds like you feel you have no choice but to let someone tell you what to think and since you know they are both biased, you chose one lie over another. I do not need any of them to tell me what to think but hey, good for you, I guess

Enough already. You hate and distrust Savage, we get it.


Uh huh...and? What do you not understand about responding to what you said? You said they are all biased while sticking up for Savage for some reason. The logic I got from that was that since they are all biased, you have to pick on liar to believe and you apparently have.

If not, what on Earth are you talking about? Either you are defending Savage or not. I am sorry you got yourself all confused but maybe you are reading too many threads at one time to remember what you said. Just a hint, when you say things and people respond to them, you cannot call them out for saying those things about you. I responded to exactly what you said. I never implied what you claim I did.

Basically all you have to add here is that this poll is all good because regardless of the actual source or substance of the poll, MSNBC is biased too so you think I should give Savage a chance. Got it. Even though the poll itself has been sufficiently picked apart with not one attempt at refutation, I will start being more open minded to a BS doctor with a fake name who spreads lies. No prob.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
Why has this post been ignored?!

Deny Ignorance? Is this ringing any bells with anyone?


You are confused about the ATS motto...it is actually a directive to propagandists on how to respond when confronted on thier BS.

As in when someone points out that your OP shows ignorance of the facts?

Deny it! Repeat the lie, ignore the facts....that is why "ignore" is the rootword of "ignorance".

Alas...I hope and pray daily that ATS is not a microcosim of America.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
The left believes the government will save them from economic catastrophe.

You don't need a scientific study to prove they are deficient in the area of economics.

Right now we are about to pass our GDP in terms of our debt.

You're average liberal has no comprehension of why this is bad. Nor do they understand the risks involved.

As the bond vigilantes continue to demand higher rates of return on sovereign debt, governments will be forced to either default on the debt or to print money.

They will print.

They always do.

Then the real economic destruction will begin.




Get it through your thick skulls liberals, the government is not your savior. It is an evil institution that acts with force in everything it does. It can not right the wrongs of inequality. It can not save for your retirement. It can not provide you with quality medical care. It can not teach your children.

It can only pretend to do those things for a while until the entire economic system of looting it is based upon crumbles around it into pieces.



[edit on 8-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Right now we are about to pass our GDP in terms of our debt.

You're average liberal has no comprehension of why this is bad. Nor do they understand the risks involved.


Yeah, let's just ignore the facts here, shall we? Sweep those Bush/Reagan years under the carpet...

National debt by U.S. presidential terms

Sheesh.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Right now we are about to pass our GDP in terms of our debt.

You're average liberal has no comprehension of why this is bad. Nor do they understand the risks involved.


Yeah, let's just ignore the facts here, shall we? Sweep those Bush/Reagan years under the carpet...

National debt by U.S. presidential terms

Sheesh.


Yeah, pass the buck.

Blame it on Bush

Blame it on Reagan.

Take no responsibility what-so-ever.

Obviously since Bush expanded government to 3 times it size, Obama should be able to triple it ten times over!

You'll get yours.

The market always wins in the end.

Always.

The looting will come to an end soon as the dollar implodes. Since the bond vigilantes are ratcheting up the pressure, I suspect the end will come sooner rather than later.

History is absolutely clear on this, the fiat empire of American tyranny will end.



[edit on 8-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
EDIT: Never mind, this is derailing this thread.

back on topic...

[edit on 8-6-2010 by negativenihil]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Yeah, pass the buck.

Blame it on Bush

Blame it on Reagan.

Take no responsibility what-so-ever.

Obviously since Bush expanded government to 3 times it size, Obama should be able to triple it ten times over!



So... what, Bush and Reagan are blameless in your opinion? Facts are facts. The numbers don't lie.

The Bush and Reagan years got us pretty deep into this mess, and denying that is simply ignorant.


No, they are both criminals that aided in the destruction of our country.

Blaming Bush for our problems when Obama is doing the exact same things is ridiculous.

Obama should be massively cutting spending, massively cutting programs, reducing taxes, and doing everything within his power to end the spending on our wars.

Instead he has presided over the largest expansion of federal power and spending since FDR.

We are screwed right now buddy, there is no getting out of this any more.

We had an opportunity to default and liquidate the debt like a civilized society should, instead our criminal leaders have decided on the course of tyranny.

The dollar is finished.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
No, they are both criminals that aided in the destruction of our country.

Blaming Bush for our problems when Obama is doing the exact same things is ridiculous.


Blaming only liberals for something even you admit conservatives are guilty of is beyond ridiculous.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by mnemeth1
No, they are both criminals that aided in the destruction of our country.

Blaming Bush for our problems when Obama is doing the exact same things is ridiculous.


Blaming only liberals for something even you admit conservatives are guilty of is beyond ridiculous.


Bush was a liberal.

Conservatives don't start two wars and expand government to three times its size.



[edit on 8-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Show me where I said the poll was good?

My point, and let me be very clear on this, is that if you (in this case the OP) use a proxy source (in this case savage.com) instead of the original source (in this case WSJ) some people (in this case you) will dismiss the article based on the "bad" source, not the actual article or its original source.

You, sir, went on a tirade about Savage in the very first post you made. (Granted you did go on to read it, and I agree that the questions were leading as everyone else has said). I am not defending any of the talking heads because they all push their own BS. I simply pointed out that if your going to take sarcastic stabs at someone, get your facts straight.

In fact, it seems the only contributions you make to any post is arguing with people about things that have nothing to do with the original post. Stop now, I know your already going to say your standard question of "show me where........". I don't have to, others can read your thread posts and make up thier own mind.

10-4 on this post



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



Bush was a liberal.

Conservatives don't start two wars and expand government to three times its size.



Ah...I see...Bush wasn't a true scotsman.

Glad we cleared that up.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join