The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Political Ammunition => Topic started by: Ballygrl on April 22, 2012, 06:27:09 PM
-
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/22/science-say-gop-voters-better-informed-open-minded/
Science: GOP voters better informed, open-minded
04/22/2012
By Neil Munro
Yet another new survey shows that Republican supporters know more about politics and political history than Democrats.
On eight of 13 questions about politics, Republicans outscored Democrats by an average of 18 percentage points, according to a new Pew survey “Partisan Differences in Knowledge.â€
The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party.
“Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge,†said the study, which noted that Democrats outscored Republicans on five questions by an average of 4.6 percent.
-Continued at the link-
-
Don't tell the douchenozzles this, they think they are the smartest people on earth.
-
Don't tell the douchenozzles this, they think they are the smartest people on earth.
I already did, it's in DU you know 3.0 LOL.
-
I already did, it's in DU you know 3.0 LOL.
OOPS LOL
-
They really needed a survey? :???:
-
They really needed a survey? :???:
Actually, they needed several, eating up several million dollars in taxpayer grants over the span of about 15 years. The leftist university profs overseeing the surveys couldn't believe their eyes the first dozen times the results came in. :popcorn:
-
Actually, they needed several, eating up several million dollars in taxpayer grants over the span of about 15 years. The leftist university profs overseeing the surveys couldn't believe their eyes the first dozen times the results came in. :popcorn:
They even sent the results to East Anglia college for scrubbing.
-
Actually, they needed several, eating up several million dollars in taxpayer grants over the span of about 15 years. The leftist university profs overseeing the surveys couldn't believe their eyes were too stupid and closed minded to realize what they were looking at the first dozen times the results came in. :popcorn:
Fixt. :II:
-
I'm curious... Doesn't anyone find it a little spurious that blogs report information, but don't actually offer a link to the source material?
I'm guessing that if we (could) take a poll where respondents couldn't lie, the vast majority of people reading the link in the OP didn't go to the source (the Pew) survey.
Here it is: Pew Survey (http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/)
I didn't find anything in the survey that offered the following conclusions:
The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party.
A wave of studies? What studies, why not link them so we can read them?
Where does the Pew poll suggest that "GOP supporters are better educated (a claim made later in the article), more empathetic and more open to criticism"? What are the other reports and studies that suggest these things.....
However, Pew’s data suggests that the Democrats’ low average rating likely is a consequence of its bipolar political coalition, which combines well-credentialed post-graduate progressives who score well in quizzes with a much larger number of poorly educated supporters, who score badly.
While not entirely dishonest, the phrase "Pew’s data suggests..." makes it sound like these conclusions were drawn by Pew and not the author who is just espousing his own opinion.
If I had to identify just one problem that has contributed to the disconnect in politics and the people, it's the fact that media misleads people (though almost always in a way that's plausibly deniable). Please note that the point of my post is not to refute the claims of "The Daily Caller", though, honestly I would refute several points....But again, that's not the focus of my reply....It's to point out that everyone has a political agenda and that everyone should question everything they read.
-
I'm curious... Doesn't anyone find it a little spurious that blogs report information, but don't actually offer a link to the source material?
I'm guessing that if we (could) take a poll where respondents couldn't lie, the vast majority of people reading the link in the OP didn't go to the source (the Pew) survey.
Here it is: Pew Survey (http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/)
I didn't find anything in the survey that offered the following conclusions:
A wave of studies? What studies, why not link them so we can read them?
Where does the Pew poll suggest that "GOP supporters are better educated (a claim made later in the article), more empathetic and more open to criticism"? What are the other reports and studies that suggest these things.....
While not entirely dishonest, the phrase "Pew’s data suggests..." makes it sound like these conclusions were drawn by Pew and not the author who is just espousing his own opinion.
If I had to identify just one problem that has contributed to the disconnect in politics and the people, it's the fact that media misleads people (though almost always in a way that's plausibly deniable). Please note that the point of my post is not to refute the claims of "The Daily Caller", though, honestly I would refute several points....But again, that's not the focus of my reply....It's to point out that everyone has a political agenda and that everyone should question everything they read.
Well, apart from stating the obvious -- that media are biased -- I'm not sure what your point is. Fact is, man can't put pen to paper without revealing bias. It's simply the way it is.
From the Pew Survey in question (emphasis is mine):
Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge. The largest gaps are in awareness of which party is more supportive of reducing the size and scope of the federal government (30 points) and which party is more conservative (28 points).
Republicans also are 21 percentage points more likely than Democrats to know that the GOP is more supportive of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
There is only one policy question – which party is more supportive of cutting defense spending – on which Democrats are more knowledgeable than Republicans. Two-thirds of Democrats (67%) identify the Democratic Party as being more supportive of reducing the size of the defense budget, compared with 59% of Republicans.
On the remaining issues – expanding the rights of gays and lesbians, increasing taxes on the wealthy, restricting abortion and providing immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally with a possible “path to citizenshipâ€â€“ there are no significant differences in knowledge between Democrats and Republicans.
Seems cut and dried to me. Bitchslapped for inciting a riot.
-
Another long-winded troll?
-
I'm curious... Doesn't anyone find it a little spurious that blogs report information, but don't actually offer a link to the source material?
I'm guessing that if we (could) take a poll where respondents couldn't lie, the vast majority of people reading the link in the OP didn't go to the source (the Pew) survey.
Here it is: Pew Survey (http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/)
I didn't find anything in the survey that offered the following conclusions:
A wave of studies? What studies, why not link them so we can read them?
Where does the Pew poll suggest that "GOP supporters are better educated (a claim made later in the article), more empathetic and more open to criticism"? What are the other reports and studies that suggest these things.....
While not entirely dishonest, the phrase "Pew’s data suggests..." makes it sound like these conclusions were drawn by Pew and not the author who is just espousing his own opinion.
If I had to identify just one problem that has contributed to the disconnect in politics and the people, it's the fact that media misleads people (though almost always in a way that's plausibly deniable). Please note that the point of my post is not to refute the claims of "The Daily Caller", though, honestly I would refute several points....But again, that's not the focus of my reply....It's to point out that everyone has a political agenda and that everyone should question everything they read.
Bitch slapped for making me fall asleep, Yawn!
-
Seems cut and dried to me. Bitchslapped for inciting a riot.
Another long-winded troll?
Bitch slapped for making me fall asleep, Yawn!
GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans....
And yet all of your responses appear to contradict that (asserted) conclusion.... Thanks for playing.
-
GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans....
And yet all of your responses appear to contradict that (asserted) conclusion.... Thanks for playing.
:rotf: I am just playing along to see where this leads :-)
-
GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans....
And yet all of your responses appear to contradict that (asserted) conclusion.... Thanks for playing.
Are you claiming otherwise, and holding yourself up as an example ? By the way, have you formally introduced yourself to the forum ?
-
Are you claiming otherwise, and holding yourself up as an example ? By the way, have you formally introduced yourself to the forum ?
Myself as an example....I'd like to think that I conduct myself in a responsible and civil manner. If disagreement on issues is "bad" well I guess I'm in trouble, otherwise I'll do my best to set a good example.
In regards to introductions, No but I would be happy to.....Is there a special place for introductions?
Thanks....
-
Myself as an example....I'd like to think that I conduct myself in a responsible and civil manner. If disagreement on issues is "bad" well I guess I'm in trouble, otherwise I'll do my best to set a good example.
In regards to introductions, No but I would be happy to.....Is there a special place for introductions?
Thanks....
Yes, in the "Introduce yourself" board. Start a thread there to introduce yourself to the forum.
-
Yes, in the "Introduce yourself" board. Start a thread there to introduce yourself to the forum.
Done.
-
Done.
Well done I might add. I hope your membership is fulfilling, and meets as well as exceeds your expectations.
-
GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans....
And yet all of your responses appear to contradict that (asserted) conclusion.... Thanks for playing.
It seems to me your statement/observation is based on either poor reading skills on your part, or trolling behavior.
Which is it?
From the very link that you presented, the conclusion drawn by Mr. Munro is consistent with it. So are not less than a dozen other links I'd seen in doing a simple Google. Are you suggesting that a minimum of 13 other stories/links are drawing false conclusions? Or that Mr. Munro is "reaching"?
You were bitchslapped initially because you failed to read the board's TOU regarding noobs. You just started posting away as if you'd been here for years. It's a simple matter of forum courtesy to introduce oneself, yet you couldn't be bothered with taking care of that little chore until you'd been told by one person, then told by a second person. Do you normally fail to read and understand simple instructions?
Back to the question at hand - did you bother to read the quoted passage from the very Pew Survey that you brayed about, asserting that nobody else in the room but you had read it? And that everybody else in the room was wrong about the conclusions drawn, except for you?
I not only smell a troll -- I smell an arrogant troll.
-
It seems to me your statement/observation is based on either poor reading skills on your part, or trolling behavior.
Which is it?
From the very link that you presented, the conclusion drawn by Mr. Munro is consistent with it. So are not less than a dozen other links I'd seen in doing a simple Google. Are you suggesting that a minimum of 13 other stories/links are drawing false conclusions? Or that Mr. Munro is "reaching"?
You were bitchslapped initially because you failed to read the board's TOU regarding noobs. You just started posting away as if you'd been here for years. It's a simple matter of forum courtesy to introduce oneself, yet you couldn't be bothered with taking care of that little chore until you'd been told by one person, then told by a second person. Do you normally fail to read and understand simple instructions?
Back to the question at hand - did you bother to read the quoted passage from the very Pew Survey that you brayed about, asserting that nobody else in the room but you had read it? And that everybody else in the room was wrong about the conclusions drawn, except for you?
I not only smell a troll -- I smell an arrogant troll.
I'm in a manner of speaking "smelling what the Rock's got cooking"
-
It seems to me your statement/observation is based on either poor reading skills on your part, or trolling behavior.
Which is it?
From the very link that you presented, the conclusion drawn by Mr. Munro is consistent with it. So are not less than a dozen other links I'd seen in doing a simple Google. Are you suggesting that a minimum of 13 other stories/links are drawing false conclusions? Or that Mr. Munro is "reaching"?
You were bitchslapped initially because you failed to read the board's TOU regarding noobs. You just started posting away as if you'd been here for years. It's a simple matter of forum courtesy to introduce oneself, yet you couldn't be bothered with taking care of that little chore until you'd been told by one person, then told by a second person. Do you normally fail to read and understand simple instructions?
Back to the question at hand - did you bother to read the quoted passage from the very Pew Survey that you brayed about, asserting that nobody else in the room but you had read it? And that everybody else in the room was wrong about the conclusions drawn, except for you?
I not only smell a troll -- I smell an arrogant troll.
I refer back to my original statment...
GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans
And rest my case....
-
I refer back to my original statment...
And rest my case....
Let's break this down, shall we?
You make these comments:
I'm curious... Doesn't anyone find it a little spurious that blogs report information, but don't actually offer a link to the source material?
I'm guessing that if we (could) take a poll where respondents couldn't lie, the vast majority of people reading the link in the OP didn't go to the source (the Pew) survey.
Since you like to parse words, I wouldn't characterize The Daily Caller as a blog. It appears to be an online news source, though I'm not any sort of authority on this point. You might call Munro's article a blog, but I'd call it an straight ahead article simply because he's reporting on the Pew Survey -- not espousing an opinion.
But to cut to the chase before getting into the meat of the matter, your post, on its face, is trolling behavior because you flat-out generalize that "the vast majority of people reading the link in the OP didn't go to the source (the Pew) survey." Project much?
You make this outrageous, inflammatory claim, insinuating that most, if not all, of the posters on this thread are a bunch of mindless idiots. Strike One.
But let's go on.
You show you can't find your ass with a road map when you make this statement:
I didn't find anything in the survey that offered the following conclusions:
The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party.
And then you further show your blindness/laziness when you offer this:
A wave of studies? What studies, why not link them so we can read them?
Where does the Pew poll suggest that "GOP supporters are better educated (a claim made later in the article), more empathetic and more open to criticism"? What are the other reports and studies that suggest these things.....
Within the Pew survey, there is this, which I quoted in response to you:
Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge. The largest gaps are in awareness of which party is more supportive of reducing the size and scope of the federal government (30 points) and which party is more conservative (28 points).
Republicans also are 21 percentage points more likely than Democrats to know that the GOP is more supportive of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
There is only one policy question – which party is more supportive of cutting defense spending – on which Democrats are more knowledgeable than Republicans. Two-thirds of Democrats (67%) identify the Democratic Party as being more supportive of reducing the size of the defense budget, compared with 59% of Republicans.
On the remaining issues – expanding the rights of gays and lesbians, increasing taxes on the wealthy, restricting abortion and providing immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally with a possible “path to citizenshipâ€â€“ there are no significant differences in knowledge between Democrats and Republicans.
I'm getting the sense that you're a word parser. Like most arrogant narcissists like your hero Barry, you like to jump on fine points and act butthurt when you're actually expected to draw a conclusion based on inference.
One might infer, for example, that "GOP supporters are better educated" simply because of the statement "Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge."
It's an inference or a conclusion based on the results of the survey. Does it actually state that? No. But then, this isn't a court of law. It's a discussion forum. Strike Two.
But let's go on, shall we?
You whined about this:
However, Pew’s data suggests that the Democrats’ low average rating likely is a consequence of its bipolar political coalition, which combines well-credentialed post-graduate progressives who score well in quizzes with a much larger number of poorly educated supporters, who score badly.
by stating:
While not entirely dishonest, the phrase "Pew’s data suggests..." makes it sound like these conclusions were drawn by Pew and not the author who is just espousing his own opinion.
Again, I question your reading comprehension skills, because the author makes the statement "Pew's data suggest..." How could anyone POSSIBLY conclude that Pew is drawing those conclusions? You're reading Munro's article, not the Pew Survey - or did you forget that little item?
But then you arrogantly go on with your final smear:
If I had to identify just one problem that has contributed to the disconnect in politics and the people, it's the fact that media misleads people (though almost always in a way that's plausibly deniable). Please note that the point of my post is not to refute the claims of "The Daily Caller", though, honestly I would refute several points....But again, that's not the focus of my reply....It's to point out that everyone has a political agenda and that everyone should question everything they read.
Here's a news flash, genius - the media's JOB is to mislead people. And they're quite good at it. Oh, they'll tell you that they take the moral high ground and a freshman journalism major will soak up the bullshit "the media reports the facts and allows the people to decide", but if you've been around longer than 20 minutes, you know it's bullshit. The media will make an editorial attempt to steer you toward their POV. Every time. It happens on the left, and it happens on the right. Strike Three.
So again, what's your point? (That's a rhetorical question.)
Your point is, you waltzed into this thread to stir shit. That's the classic definition of a troll - and I'm calling you on it.
Bitchslapped for trolling.
-
^Wow Eupher, I might frame that. Sheer beauty, and incisive analysis.
-
^Wow Eupher, I might frame that. Sheer beauty, and incisive analysis.
And, I'll note after more than a day and multiple trolling attempts on other threads, Uncommon Sense has not replied to that post.
Game, set and match.
Once a troll, always a troll. :whatever:
-
And, I'll note after more than a day and multiple trolling attempts on other threads, Uncommon Sense has not replied to that post.
Game, set and match.
Once a troll, always a troll. :whatever:
UncommonSense claims to have no agenda. The is at a minimum an axe to grind.
edited to remove "d"
-
UncommonSense claims to have no agenda. The is at a minimum an axe to grind.
edited to remove "d"
How can you tell when someone HAS an agenda...when they loudly and repeatedly claim they have none.
-
Let's break this down, shall we?
You make these comments:
Since you like to parse words, I wouldn't characterize The Daily Caller as a blog. It appears to be an online news source, though I'm not any sort of authority on this point. You might call Munro's article a blog, but I'd call it an straight ahead article simply because he's reporting on the Pew Survey -- not espousing an opinion.
But to cut to the chase before getting into the meat of the matter, your post, on its face, is trolling behavior because you flat-out generalize that "the vast majority of people reading the link in the OP didn't go to the source (the Pew) survey." Project much?
You make this outrageous, inflammatory claim, insinuating that most, if not all, of the posters on this thread are a bunch of mindless idiots. Strike One.
But let's go on.
You show you can't find your ass with a road map when you make this statement:
And then you further show your blindness/laziness when you offer this:
Within the Pew survey, there is this, which I quoted in response to you:
I'm getting the sense that you're a word parser. Like most arrogant narcissists like your hero Barry, you like to jump on fine points and act butthurt when you're actually expected to draw a conclusion based on inference.
One might infer, for example, that "GOP supporters are better educated" simply because of the statement "Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge."
It's an inference or a conclusion based on the results of the survey. Does it actually state that? No. But then, this isn't a court of law. It's a discussion forum. Strike Two.
But let's go on, shall we?
You whined about this:
by stating:
Again, I question your reading comprehension skills, because the author makes the statement "Pew's data suggest..." How could anyone POSSIBLY conclude that Pew is drawing those conclusions? You're reading Munro's article, not the Pew Survey - or did you forget that little item?
But then you arrogantly go on with your final smear:
Here's a news flash, genius - the media's JOB is to mislead people. And they're quite good at it. Oh, they'll tell you that they take the moral high ground and a freshman journalism major will soak up the bullshit "the media reports the facts and allows the people to decide", but if you've been around longer than 20 minutes, you know it's bullshit. The media will make an editorial attempt to steer you toward their POV. Every time. It happens on the left, and it happens on the right. Strike Three.
So again, what's your point? (That's a rhetorical question.)
Your point is, you waltzed into this thread to stir shit. That's the classic definition of a troll - and I'm calling you on it.
Bitchslapped for trolling.
I think some of my points are valid, but your right. I came on a bit strong and I should have expected this type of backlash. I'll work on it.
Cheers...
-
I think some of my points are valid, but your right. I came on a bit strong and I should have expected this type of backlash. I'll work on it.
Cheers...
Lovely. :whatever:
While you're "working on it", you might want to pay special attention to your proclivity to insult and otherwise castigate other posters. You, a brand new member of this forum, managed to insult a number of other members with your initial post in this thread, not to say you didn't do the same in other threads.
You'll note that liberals such as yourself are not immediately banned for participating in "spirited debate", but a certain amount of decorum is expected. You were invited to introduce yourself after your first post. You failed to do so because you were caught up in your troll-like behavior. You finally got the point when a second person reminded you to do so, but it still took you 15 posts to "get it."
Having the discussions is certainly a part of this community and is a practice that is relished by many.
If it's your intention to be a part of this community, I'd suggest you get into the habit of doing the following:
1. Present your POV. NOTE: Challenging the community to present THEIR point of view up front is borderline trollish, IMHO.
2. Offer evidence that supports your POV. Note: Wikipedia, the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, Media Matters, and other liberal rags aren't generally considered unbiased, as is WorldNetDaily on the conservative side.
3. Engage in discussion, but asking questions about what others believe in an endless stream accomplishes little.
4. Put your seat belt on.
-
How can you tell when someone HAS an agenda...when they loudly and repeatedly claim they have none.
I'm sensing this is a rhetorical question, so I will ask you a rhetorical question. Is it ?
-
I'm sensing this is a rhetorical question, so I will ask you a rhetorical question. Is it ?
If an agenda is a "list" of things to then I suppose we all have things to do....
-
If an agenda is a "list" of things to then I suppose we all have things to do....
Why are you resisting the use of the word "agenda". The way I mean it is singular or plural. It is a worldview that is made manifest step by step. Not necessarily having one item priority, but the overall goal of, how did owebuma put it...radical change.
-
I'm sensing this is a rhetorical question, so I will ask you a rhetorical question. Is it ?
Yeah pretty much. It's like claiming not to be a Liberal...flat out denying it...despite the fact everything you say andbelieve in screams "I'm a Liberal".
They run from what they truly believe in because they (Liberals) know that their policies and beliefs are not accepted by a majority of Americans.
-
Yeah pretty much. It's like claiming not to be a Liberal...flat out denying it...despite the fact everything you say andbelieve in screams "I'm a Liberal".
They run from what they truly believe in because they (Liberals) know that their policies and beliefs are not accepted by a majority of Americans.
Good post txradioguy, and yes, it is a very underhanded, cowardly dishonest philosophy.
-
it is a very underhanded, cowardly dishonest philosophy.
Well they have to engage in deciet. All you have to do is look at the DUmp to see the true ugly face of Liberalism.
Now who in all honsety and good conscience would stand up and say in public...especially if you're trying to get elected...that you support that?