OT: TSA vs us: Will Americans resist or wimp out?

Page 6 of 16  


Keeping with that lie, eh, Goebbels?

Hint: You're a liar.

A.K.A. Loser's CoolAid.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Iarnrod wrote:

You are correct. I didn't mean to imply profanity never happens with conservatives. The military teaches, for example, to avoid vulgarisms so that they may be employed to better effect in extreme situations, such as "Get your rear-end out of that foxhole, soldier!"
I really meant the frequency of their use.
In a study done last year, if was found that the seven naughty words (and their derivatives) were used eighteen times more frequently in "liberal" blogs (i.e., Daily KOS) than in "conservative" blogs (i.e., Lucianne.com).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/26/2010 2:12 PM, HeyBub wrote:

Perhaps it's because Liberals act on emotion rather than rational thought and their use of foul language is meant to elicit emotional responses? :-)
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Wow, such irony.
It is well known that the left relies on reason while the right is all emotion and vitriol. Just watch the hate seethe from the right. It'd be funny if it weren;t so dangerous for the nation.

You're talking 'bout the 'baggers here, ain'tcha!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/26/2010 2:54 PM, Iarnrod wrote:

Iarny, get some psychiatric help soon.
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

In a study last year, "it" was found that false studies were used 18 times more often in conservative blogs than liberal ones. (-: Of course, it could have been my personal study but without a citation or a reference, we would never know.
As for your claim, by whom, when and where was this study done? Can we see/read the study design? The conclusion seem to be different from my own experience and one has to wonder how careful they were in deciding who had actually written what. I worry that a study like that could produce whatever results the study designers wanted to show depending on the methodology. Without knowing anything about the who, what or why of such a study, a reasonable person could easily conclude that this is just another factoid that was made up mostly of thin air and means just about as much.
A more more interesting study would be about which political faction makes up data to support their conclusions more often than the other. That's a far more dangerous trend than using bad words because distorting the truth can have distastrous consequences. It's especially important in light of the fabrication of evidence that lead us into this incredibly expensive war in Iraq. If our President (well, it was actually "General 'FetchIt' Powell) tells us that Iraq had WMDs, we tend to believe him. And the more we hear it, the more we believe it's true.
I guess nearly a decade of war, a few trillion dollars and thousands of lives finally exposed that lie for at least one or two people. Sadly, research show that the people who thought they had WMDs *still* believe it. Some think they were smuggled out of the country without detection (by a guy that ended up living and being caught in a rat hole in the backyard). Others have different theories. If there's anything that scares me it's the continual lack of critical thinking of most Americans exhibit and the absolute willingness of politicians to exploit that lack to further their own ends. If it's not "WMD's - war please!" then it's "the economy is going to collapse - $50 billion please!"
For example, consider how the idea that getting the ultra-rich to pay their fair share of taxes is suddenly "wrong." We hear all sorts of reasons to give the ultra-rich a pass, but just don't make sense when run to ground. The people who put these ideas in play count on that fact that people will accept BS without making a peep. The supposedly ultra-liberal NY Times pushed hard for the Iraq war. That's sad because the Fourth Estate is supposed to be the last line of defense in terms of "knowing better" and how to ask the tough questions that might have slowed the call to war.
With 20% of Americans believing Obama's a Muslim (even while they bash his attendence at Rev. Wright's Christian Church) we've got a serious disconnect with the truth in this country.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18704_5-mind-blowing-ways-your-memory-plays-tricks-you.html
"There was quite a stir recently when it turned out that a growing number of people believe the President of the USA is a Muslim. . . . this is just an issue of fact, and the fact is that at various times we have all seen video clips of Mr. Obama drinking alcohol, eating pork, getting sworn in on a Christian Bible and sitting in a Christian church."
It's just like the assertions that Obama was going to confiscate everyone's guns or just pack up and leave AfRaq - very popular sentiments when he took office but apparently completely untrue. The more it is repeated the truer it seems. Even though it hasn't happened, and in fact just the reverse has occurred, won't erase that belief from the minds of the people that thought it was true to begin with.
It alarms me how easily people assume things are true without any kind of critical evaluation of the source. Worse, still, it's a well known psychological fact that one people learn the wrong information, they don't seem able to unlearn it. It's probably because unless one sustain's brain damage, you don't "unlearn" - you simply learn something new in addition to the wrong information.
The URL I cited above goes on to say:
"They call it the "Illusion of Truth" effect. We judge things to be true based on how often we hear them. We like familiarity, and repeating a lie often enough makes it familiar to us, the repetition making it fall right in with all of the things our memory tells us are true about the world. Every advertiser or propagandist knows this. Humans are social animals, and there is a primal part of us that still says, "If other members of the tribe who I feel close to believe this, there must be something to it. And no, simply showing us the correct information doesn't fix it. Quite the opposite: research shows that once we've seized on an incorrect piece of information, exposure to the facts either doesn't change what we think, or makes us even more likely to hold onto the false information. You can guess why this is: our self-image triumphs over all. It's more important that we continue to think of ourselves as infallible than admit we're wrong. This is how people continue to believe admitted hoaxes after they have been proven to be fake."
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A more interesting study would be which political faction rewrites history.

Gee, you mean most of the Senate and House of Reps? The CIA (under Clinton holdover Mr. Tenant) heck even the French who stonewalled at the UN? Even the NYT, aka the DNC Newsletter, wrote an article after the war that SH's Generals were at least as surprised saying that they were sure some OTHER General had the stockpile under his control.. something that SH apparently used to keep them cowed. According at another article, even the Saudis and Iranians were surprised.

See about the revisionism? At the time he would have smuggled them out (a theory I don't buy, BTW), he was not the guy in the rat hole, he was the person in control of an entire country with multiple palaces, and multiple murders under his belt. THAT guy was the one who (for reasons I still don't understand) sent much of Air Force to Iran during GWI.

What is wrong is pretending that there is some amount of money set in stone. Give me a nice, objective standard for "fair" and I might change my mind. Othewise, this boils down to "someone is making more than I think they should so I want to take some away to punish them." The share of total fed tax liabilities (income, FICA, etc. paid for by the top 1% has increased from 15.4% in '79 to 28.3% in 2006 (last figures I have been able to find). The top 10% (TEN PERCENT) paid 40.7% of all Fed Tax liabilities in 1979, which had risen to 55.4% ( top10% of taxpaying household paid over half of all Fed taxes.) During the same time frame the taxes paid by the lowest quintile fell from 2.1% to 0.8%. If you look only at individual income tax liabilities, the falls were even greater with the top 10% paying 72.8% of income taxes. Because of things like earned income tax credit, and others, the lowest two percentile have a negative share of income taxes (-2.8 for lowest and -0.8 for next) meaning they get more back than they pay in. http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/tax_liability_shares .pdf

Actually that is the constitutional role of the Congress. They voted fairly overwhelmingly (like the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in an earlier, yet eerily similar time).

The Simon principle (Paul Simon, that is): "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in part:

Not only taxes, but also income has shifted away from the bottom and the middle to the top.
And people not only pay Federal income taxes, but they also pay state and local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, motor fuel taxes, electricity taxes, and telephone taxes. The homes that lower income people can afford tend to be in higher tax rate areas. Many townships with lower property tax rates have zoning laws designed to keep out housing that working class people can afford.
Warren Buffet did say that his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he does. One factor could be that long term capital gains and "qualified dividends" are taxed at a much lower rate than "ordinary income" is.
--
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

Your point being since the current debate is on federal taxes and fair amount thereof? You have a cite on that. Most of the ones I see who pronounce that tend to look at total and not just township rates. Many of these townships are in inner cities with township, city, school and various weird taxing districts included that aren't seen in other more affluent areas and many are left over from when the area was much better off. The two places I am familiar with right off the bat (Center Township in Indy and Wayne in Ft. Wayne) both are near the middle of the pack at least for the township total. Another interesting aspect is that many of these poorer township have a large amount of non-taxable property. If you put this back on the rolls the value of the property owned by the city, county, state and, in the case of Center Township, Indiana University, the rates would be among the lowest.

Warren says a lot of things.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don't fly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green wrote:

Thanks for being skeptical - you forced me to look up the study and repair my porous memory. In so doing, I discovered my original post contained two grievous errors. The study was not done "last year," as I reported. The study took place in 2008. Further, liberals do NOT use profanity 18 times more often than conservatives - the rate was actually twelve times more often.
Here's the article on the survey. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/07/profanity-greater-on-liberal-blogs /

I disagree. While your interest may be of value, it is a completely separate subject from vitrol. If anything, "making up data" implies a more logical mind than one driven by emotion.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "fair." In my view, the poor should pay MORE than the rich simply because they use more government services! Oh, the rich ARE driven on the public roads and their jets DO use the national airspace, so the rich should pay something. But they don't send their kids to government schools, get food stamps, are treated at the county hospital, and the like.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And thanks to you not feeding the trolls in this thread. While I often disagree with you at least you're able to control yourself in a way that I'm afraid others cannot.
Now that our mutual admiration session is ended, let's get back to what you've so generously called a study . . .

It's a fascinating proof of some of the interesting articles at the site I referenced about all the ways that one's memory can play tricks. I'm certainly guilty of it, as many here are simply because our minds are wired to work that way. In politics, we constantly minimize the faults of our own pols while amplifying those of the opposing side.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/07/profanity-greater-on-liberal-blogs /
Oh Jeez, Bub, that's not a "study" in the sense of any study I've ever worked on (too damn many). It's simply one *very* conservative reporter's very poorly constructed Google search on "bad words" he found on sites he apparently he cherry picked. The number of hits involved (1.9 million) also tells us it's not very likely he separated out comments by liberals on conservative forums from those of conservatives on liberal forms. His breakdown of sites by "pages" tells uw nothing about the average number of words per page, although he does make meaningless calculations with those page numbers anyway. There's no hint the data was normalized in any way. You are of COURSE going to find more bad words in a site that has more total words.
The comments sections of political sites, as anyone who has visited them knows, are infested with comments of those taking opposing positions. The search you cited is *SO* meaningless it may even qualify as the most meaningless thing I've ever seen anyone call a study. It's one person haphazardly counting "hits" on Google without knowing anything about the individual comments, who wrote them, or how many times common words like "the" appeared to even TRY to normalize the data. There are other flaws that one could drive a dumptruck through, but they really don't merit discussion when the whole framework is so faulty. In other words, your "study" isn't worth the paper it was printed on, just based on the study methodology. If you've ever listened to the Nixon tapes, the nasty language he used put Cheney's famous F-word blowout on Capitol Hill to shame. In other words even history puts the lie to the phony conclusions of this alleged study.
Two further indicators of study bias are that the foundering WashTimes is often named as one of three consistently conservative news organizations (Fox and the WSJ are the others). FWIW, the author of the "study" runs a site devoted to exposing "liberal media bias" and rooting through that site for a moment is about all anyone but a rabid conservative could stand. It's riddled with the same sorts of errors that plague his alleged "study." FWIW, the WashTimes was started by the Rev. Moon to espouse his whacky political beliefs and curry favor with conservative hardliners.
I'd find a much more interesting a less biased "study" one that included the distinctly partisan vitriol that's become the rage. HObama, libtard, etc. Cataloging those very specifically aimed taunts would tell us a lot more than the utterly worthless "who said "Fuc<" how many times" "study" you referenced because we would know who the epithets were targeted at. From what I've seen, the conservatives have far more "hate" words coined for liberals than the reverse. But it's just a hunch. I'll have to repeat the WashTimes "study" to get to the real truth! (-:
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/24/2010 7:27 PM, HeyBub wrote:

It's also dependent on who's ox is being gored. Have you seen any interviews with the vociferous whack job feminazi attorney Gloria Allred concerning the TSA fondling policy? This is the lawyer who will file suite against a company if one of its executives looks at a secretary's breasts and she's unmoved about the genital exams given by the TSA. It's beyond bizarre! Would you think she's an Obama worshiping Leftist?
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:38:32 -0600, The Daring Dufas

I have: Gloria Allred Likes Being Groped During Airport Pat Downs
TMI at 5:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcMpUi1fCHk

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/24/2010 9:00 PM, Oren wrote:

Isn't it amazing how Allred dances around the subject? I'll bet BeeHO could rape an infant in the middle of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in front of her and she would dismiss it as the fellow is just having a bad day. 8-)
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:12:51 -0600, The Daring Dufas

No. Not really. Are you surprised?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/24/2010 9:38 PM, Oren wrote:

It's got to be her worship of the Leftist leaning administration we're saddled with for now. I'll bet my pet bedbugs that when the new Right leaning administration comes into power, she'll bouncing up and down and screeching like an excited chimp. 8-)
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Nov 24, 7:28pm, "Stormin Mormon"

Hey Stormin' Moron, I SHOWED the truth: Pelosi neither said what the lying rightard (if I may be redundant) claimed nor did she said it to whom he claimed. And then, he posted the YouTube video that proved I was telling the truth!!
Even a glue-sniffing useless piece of top-posting rightarded freeloading crap like you ought to find that funny.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/24/2010 8:34 PM, Iarnrod wrote:

You really, really need help from a mental health care professional Iarny, get some counseling at the very least.
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Translation: You still have nothing while I PWN you.
Hint: Next time you lie, don't post links that prove you're the liar!
<sips Victory Iced tea>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.