Fox news credibility hits 'record low'

[Oddball]

Dementia, and even more offensive, but telling, dementia at a younger age, apparently set in with blind idiots in the inner cities who vote against Lincoln's party that gave them the Liberty confirmed by the blood of thousands of WHITE soldiers fighting and dieing for the liberation of black slaves, the Party that fought the Democrat Party of Ku Klux Klan wizards like the gratefully and not too soon departed piece of crap "Senator" like Robert Byrd.

If you want to make the case of dementia setting in at advanced age, you can find no better example than Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Or the drunk killer Ted Kennedy.

Unless, of course, you look at subhuman crap like Conyers of Michigan, Rangel of New York, Pelosi and Reid of Nevada and Boxer of California and Schumer of New York.

Hey...Let's not forget Dianne Frankenstein, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Bernie Sanders and, of course,....

 

[FJO]

People who denigrate older folks who happen to be viewers of FOX News, seem to forget that maybe their own parents could just maybe FOX News watchers.

Also the fact that as people age, except for the terminally stupid, they realize the folly of their Democrat/liberal idiocy and eventually got their brains together and become Republicans.

So, let them gloat, for now. One day, they wake up and realize that the government - i. e. Obama) does not pay their grocery bills, their mortgage (provided they don't live in subsidized housing), their car payments, their gas bill filling the tanks of such cars, the education of their children, their cell phones and the debt they pile up at street corner drug dealers and local liquor stores and stores that still sell tobacco products.

Even now, an honest look in the mirror would shut up a lot of freeloaders, if only they had any decency and honesty, they would realize that placing their faith in government (Obama) instead of themselves, is chasing a false and deceitful dream that will eventually end up in disappointment.

But as people get older, they usually get wiser.

I hope that people who debase, denigrate, besmirch and bash old folks never reach the age that they are so disrespectful about.

So as dementia begins to set in, people are more likely to become republicans.

I actually agree with that. Bravo.

I usually ignore cheap and lying clowns like you, who make desperate attempts, time after time, in order to put words into mouths who never said those things but in your case I make an exception because you are exceptionally stupid.

If I did not appreciate your posts that are a non-ending source of laughter, due to their insipid stupidity, I would put you on ignore.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

People who denigrate older folks who happen to be viewers of FOX News, seem to forget that maybe their own parents could just maybe FOX News watchers.

Also the fact that as people age, except for the terminally stupid, they realize the folly of their Democrat/liberal idiocy and eventually got their brains together and become Republicans.

So, let them gloat, for now. One day, they wake up and realize that the government - i. e. Obama) does not pay their grocery bills, their mortgage (provided they don't live in subsidized housing), their car payments, their gas bill filling the tanks of such cars, the education of their children, their cell phones and the debt they pile up at street corner drug dealers and local liquor stores and stores that still sell tobacco products.

Even now, an honest look in the mirror would shut up a lot of freeloaders, if only they had any decency and honesty, they would realize that placing their faith in government (Obama) instead of themselves, is chasing a false and deceitful dream that will eventually end up in disappointment.

But as people get older, they usually get wiser.

I hope that people who debase, denigrate, besmirch and bash old folks never reach the age that they are so disrespectful about.

So as dementia begins to set in, people are more likely to become republicans.

I actually agree with that. Bravo.

I usually ignore cheap and lying clowns like you, who make desperate attempts, time after time, in order to put words into mouths who never said those things but in your case I make an exception because you are exceptionally stupid.

If I did not appreciate your posts that are a non-ending source of laughter, due to their insipid stupidity, I would put you on ignore.

In a previos reply you tried to equate the political parties during the Civil War with the parties today, yet you claim I am the "clown?"

Furthermore, while I appreciated the rply, the list of "democratic boogeymen" in response to my reply was rather pointless. If I desired to hear the normal right-wing grunge, I would turn on the radio and listen to the actual sources like Limbaugh or Beck.

If your posts include nothing but parroting and plagurized talking points from your betters, perhaps you should put me on ignore.

 

[FJO]

So as dementia begins to set in, people are more likely to become republicans.

I actually agree with that. Bravo.

I usually ignore cheap and lying clowns like you, who make desperate attempts, time after time, in order to put words into mouths who never said those things but in your case I make an exception because you are exceptionally stupid.

If I did not appreciate your posts that are a non-ending source of laughter, due to their insipid stupidity, I would put you on ignore.

In a previos reply you tried to equate the political parties during the Civil War with the parties today, yet you claim I am the "clown?"

Furthermore, while I appreciated the rply, the list of "democratic boogeymen" in response to my reply was rather pointless. If I desired to hear the normal right-wing grunge, I would turn on the radio and listen to the actual sources like Limbaugh or Beck.

If your posts include nothing but parroting and plagurized talking points from your betters, perhaps you should put me on ignore.

Believe it or not, where I live, I don't get either Limbaugh or Beck, but I get the usual TV channels, for some of which I have to pay, but for balanced opinions, I don't mind to do so.

I dropped the time-wasting habit of watching anything in real time. I use my recorder and watch stuff at my convenience.

I record prime time opinion shows on FNC and MSNBC. On any recorded show I look for opposing opinions. If and when I don't find it, that segment of the show gets quickly bypassed, unless I have a mind to note the advertisers and make a note to boycott them in the future.

I find that FNC have an opposing opinion, sometimes that is ALL they have. MSNBC, on the other hand, has nothing but Obama ass kissers, with the occasional soft Republican like Michael Steele or .....???

MSNBC does nothing but bash Republicans and FNC. FNC, on the other hand, rarely dignifies the punks like Schultz, O'Donnell, Maddow and Matthews by even mentioning their names, never mind their blind Obama-loving nonsense.

I form my own opinion, I need no help from any of the sources you think conservatives like myself get pour opinion from.

 

[Zander]

There was research done a few months ago that showed that Fox viewers were less informed than anyone else...including people that didn't watch any news!!!

I doubt that. But if you have a link, I'd read it.

Study Finds Fox News Viewers Least Informed Of All Viewers

The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly -- a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.

Thanks for posting that. Interestingly, the poll is limited to New Jersey residents. That makes sense.......

I am confident that I could produce a"scientific" poll that showed Fox News viewers are smarter and more informed than others...... It really depends upon how the questions are couched and the desired result - then PRESTO!! a poll that "proves" your point.

More importantly, who the hell cares? this is exactly the kind of divisive bullshit the political duopoly wants. Keeps us distracted from the real issues.

 

[Pogo]

I doubt that. But if you have a link, I'd read it.

Study Finds Fox News Viewers Least Informed Of All Viewers

The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly -- a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.

Of course.... a link from Huffpost....

Actually Carol, that's the same Fairleigh Dickinson study I already linked directly last night. Getting to it through HuffPo doesn't change the numbers. It's the same thing.

This is what I call the Media Matters Syndrome: MM puts up a video of Rush Limbaugh yelling "slut!" and the apologists come in with "oh it's MediaMatters, that's not credible' -- in spite of it being a video of direct evidence. If it's a set of facts, it doesn't matter who links it from their website any more than it matters which one of us links it in a post. It's exactly the same thing.

That's why Poisoning the Well is a fallacy and not legitimate debate.

 

[Samson]

C'mon dood - are you serious? I mean this has been out for years, several polls.

Here comes one now...

And another (relevant part: section 4/page 19)...

...and another (see page 12)...

Another one here...

But wait, there's more --- Now how much would you pay?

That's like a ten-year legacy.

I have this crazy theory; I suspect these polls that everybody else knows about ... don't get reported in the Bubble.
That might actually be an argument for leaving it once in a while. Up to you though.

....s m h....

Interesting reading...I especially appreciate the fact that that regardless of the news source (except NPR), at least about 1/3 of the audience remains misinformed about almost any topic.

Of course, I would expect the larger the audience, then the larger the porportion of misinformed (FNC), but why would NPR have both the smallest audience and smallest misinformed?



I mean, don't people WANT to be informed? They can change the channel, ya know.



Apparently, not.

Good question, and it would seem, as you suggest, that no they don't want to be informed; they want to be entertained. That is after all why FNC leads in ratings -- entertainment.
Not sure why a larger or smaller audience would render a larger or smaller proportion of misinformed... a larger or smaller aggregate number yes, but proportion does not follow.

In any case, the question of who a viewer "trusts" is an emotional one. As such it should (and does) follow the ratings, since both of them are asking about the viewers' emotional attachments. With the FNC audience ratings going down, the trust factor goes down with it (more likely, vice versa; trust leads ratings). These are two sides of the same coin.

However, emotional attachments don't tell us anything about informational value. That's what the polls about the misinformed do, and that's where Fox brings up the rear.

Just the fact that posts in threads like this (on both sides) are as emotionally based as they are ("kicking serious ass in the ratings") tells us that the Fox attachment is one of emotion.
It is after all what they sell. There's no intrinsic reason to get emotionally attached to a TV news channel; we don't see people getting emotional about CNN or ABC or slavishly following their ratings up and down. Fox viewers, unlike the rest, have made a particularly emotional investment, due directly to how it presents itself. It saturates the broadcast day, particularly the broadcast night, a/k/a "prime time", when the largest audience is available.

That's the basic difference between the Fox approach and the conventional approach; Fox emphasizes entertainment over information. And that probably goes a long way to explaining the informational gap.

I believe ALL of what you have eloquently expressed is true (does anyone want to be bored?).

However, During the Superbowl CBS advertised repeatedly that they had higher rankings than any other network (outside cable). As far as misinformation as a function of news quality, there is almost no difference among the networks: ABC, NBC, CBS.

And I see no reason to suspect FNC has a monoploy on viewers that wish to be entertained rather than accurately informed. If the TOTAL VOLUME of misinformation is being generated by FNC, CBS, ABC, and NBC, the contribution of FNC is not the majority share. Indeed, they may have a higher % misinformed, but the other guys combine to misinform a much larger audience and number of voters.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Believe it or not, where I live, I don't get either Limbaugh or Beck, but I get the usual TV channels, for some of which I have to pay, but for balanced opinions, I don't mind to do so.

Question. Why are you getting your news from anyone's opinions? I prefer to hear the news with no opinion. Just tell me what happened and where - like on BBC's morning news on NPR. I think this is the problem with most Americans' low grasp of real information.

 

[FJO]

So as dementia begins to set in, people are more likely to become republicans.

I actually agree with that. Bravo.

I usually ignore cheap and lying clowns like you, who make desperate attempts, time after time, in order to put words into mouths who never said those things but in your case I make an exception because you are exceptionally stupid.

If I did not appreciate your posts that are a non-ending source of laughter, due to their insipid stupidity, I would put you on ignore.

In a previos reply you tried to equate the political parties during the Civil War with the parties today, yet you claim I am the "clown?"

Furthermore, while I appreciated the rply, the list of "democratic boogeymen" in response to my reply was rather pointless. If I desired to hear the normal right-wing grunge, I would turn on the radio and listen to the actual sources like Limbaugh or Beck.

If your posts include nothing but parroting and plagurized talking points from your betters, perhaps you should put me on ignore.

Like it or not, it was the Republican Party whose President Abraham Lincoln went into war to liberate the slaves whose descendants are too stupid to realize that they are being taken for a ride by the Democrats, with never-ending and unfulfilled promises that they could never keep, with total approval of out-of-wedlock little bastards born for welfare cash - the more the merrier - unless they are butchered for even more welfare cash.

If you claim that the Republican Party is not like it used to be, acknowledge that the Democratic Party was the party of Grand Wizard (or whatever the Hell they call their highest murderous racist pig) the gratefully departed jerk, Robert Byrd and that it was the Democrat George Wallace who was most opposed to anything that might give black equal rights.

And also remember that it was DEMOCRAT AND FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT who opined about Barrack Obama that a few years ago Obama would bring him the coffee and DEMOCRAT Joe Biden who condescendingly referred to the black guy as one who is surprisingly acute, clean and speaks with no accent. Or was it DEMOCRAT Harry Reid????

English is my second language, so please tell me what the words in your post "rply" and "plagurized" mean.

 

[Pogo]

I doubt that. But if you have a link, I'd read it.

Study Finds Fox News Viewers Least Informed Of All Viewers

The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly -- a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.

Thanks for posting that. Interestingly, the poll is limited to New Jersey residents. That makes sense.......

I am confident that I could produce a"scientific" poll that showed Fox News viewers are smarter and more informed than others...... It really depends upon how the questions are couched and the desired result - then PRESTO!! a poll that "proves" your point.

More importantly, who the hell cares? this is exactly the kind of divisive bullshit the political duopoly wants. Keeps us distracted from the real issues.

No, the first poll they did sampled NJ residents, since that's where they're based. The followup poll (which was the one I linked) went national.

Who the hell cares? You do. You're the one that asked for it, now you don't like what it says and want to run away. As you go, take those four other studies with you. They'll tell you the same thing.

And trust me, pollsters know more about leading questions than you do. That's why they construct the questions carefully, it's why they publish their methodology, and just in case there's any shortcomings in it, that's why I gave you five different studies.


None so blind as those who stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la who the hell cares". Y'all can keep running away or whining about what the URL is but it doesn't change squat.

 

[Pogo]

Interesting reading...I especially appreciate the fact that that regardless of the news source (except NPR), at least about 1/3 of the audience remains misinformed about almost any topic.

Of course, I would expect the larger the audience, then the larger the porportion of misinformed (FNC), but why would NPR have both the smallest audience and smallest misinformed?



I mean, don't people WANT to be informed? They can change the channel, ya know.



Apparently, not.

Good question, and it would seem, as you suggest, that no they don't want to be informed; they want to be entertained. That is after all why FNC leads in ratings -- entertainment.
Not sure why a larger or smaller audience would render a larger or smaller proportion of misinformed... a larger or smaller aggregate number yes, but proportion does not follow.

In any case, the question of who a viewer "trusts" is an emotional one. As such it should (and does) follow the ratings, since both of them are asking about the viewers' emotional attachments. With the FNC audience ratings going down, the trust factor goes down with it (more likely, vice versa; trust leads ratings). These are two sides of the same coin.

However, emotional attachments don't tell us anything about informational value. That's what the polls about the misinformed do, and that's where Fox brings up the rear.

Just the fact that posts in threads like this (on both sides) are as emotionally based as they are ("kicking serious ass in the ratings") tells us that the Fox attachment is one of emotion.
It is after all what they sell. There's no intrinsic reason to get emotionally attached to a TV news channel; we don't see people getting emotional about CNN or ABC or slavishly following their ratings up and down. Fox viewers, unlike the rest, have made a particularly emotional investment, due directly to how it presents itself. It saturates the broadcast day, particularly the broadcast night, a/k/a "prime time", when the largest audience is available.

That's the basic difference between the Fox approach and the conventional approach; Fox emphasizes entertainment over information. And that probably goes a long way to explaining the informational gap.

I believe ALL of what you have eloquently expressed is true (does anyone want to be bored?).

However, During the Superbowl CBS advertised repeatedly that they had higher rankings than any other network (outside cable). As far as misinformation as a function of news quality, there is almost no difference among the networks: ABC, NBC, CBS.

And I see no reason to suspect FNC has a monoploy on viewers that wish to be entertained rather than accurately informed. If the TOTAL VOLUME of misinformation is being generated by FNC, CBS, ABC, and NBC, the contribution of FNC is not the majority share. Indeed, they may have a higher % misinformed, but the other guys combine to misinform a much larger audience and number of voters.

That's a solid rational thought for the most part, but I still disagree about the proportion thing. If ABC has a misinform number of (arbitrary numbers) 25% and CBS has one of 35%, that doesn't add up to 60%. It adds up to 30. Now it's true that taking an aggregate number of the alphabets-plus-CNN adds up to a much bigger share than Fox, and therefore the aggregate number of misinformed (all other factors being equal) will be higher. But the percentage doesn't change with that, and it certainly doesn't increase on the basis of a larger baseline.

 

[Zander]

Study Finds Fox News Viewers Least Informed Of All Viewers

Thanks for posting that. Interestingly, the poll is limited to New Jersey residents. That makes sense.......

I am confident that I could produce a"scientific" poll that showed Fox News viewers are smarter and more informed than others...... It really depends upon how the questions are couched and the desired result - then PRESTO!! a poll that "proves" your point.

More importantly, who the hell cares? this is exactly the kind of divisive bullshit the political duopoly wants. Keeps us distracted from the real issues.

No, the first poll they did sampled NJ residents, since that's where they're based. The followup poll (which was the one I linked) went national.

Who the hell cares? You do. You're the one that asked for it, now you don't like what it says and want to run away. As you go, take those four other studies with you. They'll tell you the same thing.

And trust me, pollsters know more about leading questions than you do. That's why they construct the questions carefully, it's why they publish their methodology, and just in case there's any shortcomings in it, that's why I gave you five different studies.


None so blind as those who stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la who the hell cares". Y'all can keep running away or whining about what the URL is but it doesn't change squat.

That's quite an angry leap you've made there Pogo.... I did not read the links you provided, nor did I respond to you.

The bottom line for me is that people are ill informed regardless of which "TEAM" they are on. Many polls are created for specific political purposes and only published when they accomplish the desired goal. If this poll had a different outcome, we'd probably have never heard about it.....

Now about that anger issue you have......maybe a break from the forum would help?

 

[kwc57]

People who denigrate older folks who happen to be viewers of FOX News, seem to forget that maybe their own parents could just maybe FOX News watchers.

Also the fact that as people age, except for the terminally stupid, they realize the folly of their Democrat/liberal idiocy and eventually got their brains together and become Republicans.

So, let them gloat, for now. One day, they wake up and realize that the government - i. e. Obama) does not pay their grocery bills, their mortgage (provided they don't live in subsidized housing), their car payments, their gas bill filling the tanks of such cars, the education of their children, their cell phones and the debt they pile up at street corner drug dealers and local liquor stores and stores that still sell tobacco products.

Even now, an honest look in the mirror would shut up a lot of freeloaders, if only they had any decency and honesty, they would realize that placing their faith in government (Obama) instead of themselves, is chasing a false and deceitful dream that will eventually end up in disappointment.

But as people get older, they usually get wiser.

I hope that people who debase, denigrate, besmirch and bash old folks never reach the age that they are so disrespectful about.

So as dementia begins to set in, people are more likely to become republicans.

I actually agree with that. Bravo.

That witicism might work in a conversation, but given that message boards operate with the writen, not spoken word, it falls flat.

 

[Pogo]

Thanks for posting that. Interestingly, the poll is limited to New Jersey residents. That makes sense.......

I am confident that I could produce a"scientific" poll that showed Fox News viewers are smarter and more informed than others...... It really depends upon how the questions are couched and the desired result - then PRESTO!! a poll that "proves" your point.

More importantly, who the hell cares? this is exactly the kind of divisive bullshit the political duopoly wants. Keeps us distracted from the real issues.

No, the first poll they did sampled NJ residents, since that's where they're based. The followup poll (which was the one I linked) went national.

Who the hell cares? You do. You're the one that asked for it, now you don't like what it says and want to run away. As you go, take those four other studies with you. They'll tell you the same thing.

And trust me, pollsters know more about leading questions than you do. That's why they construct the questions carefully, it's why they publish their methodology, and just in case there's any shortcomings in it, that's why I gave you five different studies.


None so blind as those who stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la who the hell cares". Y'all can keep running away or whining about what the URL is but it doesn't change squat.

That's quite an angry leap you've made there Pogo.... I did not read the links you provided, nor did I respond to you.

The bottom line for me is that people are ill informed regardless of which "TEAM" they are on. Many polls are created for specific political purposes and only published when they accomplish the desired goal. If this poll had a different outcome, we'd probably have never heard about it.....

Now about that anger issue you have......maybe a break from the forum would help?

No, don't be playing that 'anger'game; just man up already. You expressed skepticism about the study metioned but not linked, said you would read it, so I linked not only that study but four more, and then you go "who the hell cares"? That's transparent.

Genuine "anger" looks more like this:

Could you repeat that? I couldn't understand you with Obama's dick in your mouth.

Don't confuse cowardice on your part with "anger" on mine. I've done did my homework; do yours.

Have a blissed day.

 

[Zander]

No, the first poll they did sampled NJ residents, since that's where they're based. The followup poll (which was the one I linked) went national.

Who the hell cares? You do. You're the one that asked for it, now you don't like what it says and want to run away. As you go, take those four other studies with you. They'll tell you the same thing.

And trust me, pollsters know more about leading questions than you do. That's why they construct the questions carefully, it's why they publish their methodology, and just in case there's any shortcomings in it, that's why I gave you five different studies.


None so blind as those who stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la who the hell cares". Y'all can keep running away or whining about what the URL is but it doesn't change squat.

That's quite an angry leap you've made there Pogo.... I did not read the links you provided, nor did I respond to you.

The bottom line for me is that people are ill informed regardless of which "TEAM" they are on. Many polls are created for specific political purposes and only published when they accomplish the desired goal. If this poll had a different outcome, we'd probably have never heard about it.....

Now about that anger issue you have......maybe a break from the forum would help?

No, don't be playing that 'anger'game; just man up already. You expressed skepticism about the study metioned but not linked, said you would read it, so I linked not only that study but four more, and then you go "who the hell cares"? That's transparent.

Genuine "anger" looks more like this:

Could you repeat that? I couldn't understand you with Obama's dick in your mouth.

Don't confuse cowardice on your part with "anger" on mine. I've done did my homework; do yours.

Have a blissed day.

Go team Go!!

 

[Lumpy 1]

I doubt that. But if you have a link, I'd read it.

Study Finds Fox News Viewers Least Informed Of All Viewers

The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly -- a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.

Thanks for posting that. Interestingly, the poll is limited to New Jersey residents. That makes sense.......

I am confident that I could produce a"scientific" poll that showed Fox News viewers are smarter and more informed than others...... It really depends upon how the questions are couched and the desired result - then PRESTO!! a poll that "proves" your point.

More importantly, who the hell cares? this is exactly the kind of divisive bullshit the political duopoly wants. Keeps us distracted from the real issues.

Exactly.. keep the voters supplied with peanuts, entertainment and beer...

 

[ArmyCowboy]

I usually ignore cheap and lying clowns like you, who make desperate attempts, time after time, in order to put words into mouths who never said those things but in your case I make an exception because you are exceptionally stupid.

If I did not appreciate your posts that are a non-ending source of laughter, due to their insipid stupidity, I would put you on ignore.

In a previos reply you tried to equate the political parties during the Civil War with the parties today, yet you claim I am the "clown?"

Furthermore, while I appreciated the rply, the list of "democratic boogeymen" in response to my reply was rather pointless. If I desired to hear the normal right-wing grunge, I would turn on the radio and listen to the actual sources like Limbaugh or Beck.

If your posts include nothing but parroting and plagurized talking points from your betters, perhaps you should put me on ignore.

Like it or not, it was the Republican Party whose President Abraham Lincoln went into war to liberate the slaves whose descendants are too stupid to realize that they are being taken for a ride by the Democrats, with never-ending and unfulfilled promises that they could never keep, with total approval of out-of-wedlock little bastards born for welfare cash - the more the merrier - unless they are butchered for even more welfare cash.

If you claim that the Republican Party is not like it used to be, acknowledge that the Democratic Party was the party of Grand Wizard (or whatever the Hell they call their highest murderous racist pig) the gratefully departed jerk, Robert Byrd and that it was the Democrat George Wallace who was most opposed to anything that might give black equal rights.

And also remember that it was DEMOCRAT AND FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT who opined about Barrack Obama that a few years ago Obama would bring him the coffee and DEMOCRAT Joe Biden who condescendingly referred to the black guy as one who is surprisingly acute, clean and speaks with no accent. Or was it DEMOCRAT Harry Reid????

English is my second language, so please tell me what the words in your post "rply" and "plagurized" mean.

Ah, spelling and typo smack, the arenas of a small mind.

As for the rest, the democratic and republican parties are nothing like they were over 150 years ago. If you feel the need to cling to the past so tightly, that's on you, not me. I operate in the present.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

I usually ignore cheap and lying clowns like you, who make desperate attempts, time after time, in order to put words into mouths who never said those things but in your case I make an exception because you are exceptionally stupid.

If I did not appreciate your posts that are a non-ending source of laughter, due to their insipid stupidity, I would put you on ignore.

In a previos reply you tried to equate the political parties during the Civil War with the parties today, yet you claim I am the "clown?"

Furthermore, while I appreciated the rply, the list of "democratic boogeymen" in response to my reply was rather pointless. If I desired to hear the normal right-wing grunge, I would turn on the radio and listen to the actual sources like Limbaugh or Beck.

If your posts include nothing but parroting and plagurized talking points from your betters, perhaps you should put me on ignore.

Believe it or not, where I live, I don't get either Limbaugh or Beck, but I get the usual TV channels, for some of which I have to pay, but for balanced opinions, I don't mind to do so.

I dropped the time-wasting habit of watching anything in real time. I use my recorder and watch stuff at my convenience.

I record prime time opinion shows on FNC and MSNBC. On any recorded show I look for opposing opinions. If and when I don't find it, that segment of the show gets quickly bypassed, unless I have a mind to note the advertisers and make a note to boycott them in the future.

I find that FNC have an opposing opinion, sometimes that is ALL they have. MSNBC, on the other hand, has nothing but Obama ass kissers, with the occasional soft Republican like Michael Steele or .....???

MSNBC does nothing but bash Republicans and FNC. FNC, on the other hand, rarely dignifies the punks like Schultz, O'Donnell, Maddow and Matthews by even mentioning their names, never mind their blind Obama-loving nonsense.

I form my own opinion, I need no help from any of the sources you think conservatives like myself get pour opinion from.

Whatever you say Francis.

 

[idb]

I doubt that. But if you have a link, I'd read it.

Study Finds Fox News Viewers Least Informed Of All Viewers

The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly -- a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.

Thanks for posting that. Interestingly, the poll is limited to New Jersey residents. That makes sense.......

I am confident that I could produce a"scientific" poll that showed Fox News viewers are smarter and more informed than others...... It really depends upon how the questions are couched and the desired result - then PRESTO!! a poll that "proves" your point.

More importantly, who the hell cares? this is exactly the kind of divisive bullshit the political duopoly wants. Keeps us distracted from the real issues.

No, it's nationwide survey

Researchers at Fairleigh Dickinson University updated a study they had conducted in late 2011. That study only sampled respondents from New Jersey, where the university is located. This time, the researchers conducted a nationwide poll.
<snip>
The survey by Fairleigh DickinsonUniversity’s PublicMind was conducted by telephone from Feb. 6 through Feb.12, 2012, using a randomly selected sample of 1185 adult residents, including an oversample of Republicanvoters, used to better estimate the Republican nominating process, nationwide contacted on both landlines andcell phones. The margin of error for a sample of 1185 randomly selected respondents is +/- 3 percentage points

Like you though, I'm generally sceptical of polls.

 

[idb]

Believe it or not, where I live, I don't get either Limbaugh or Beck, but I get the usual TV channels, for some of which I have to pay, but for balanced opinions, I don't mind to do so.

Question. Why are you getting your news from anyone's opinions? I prefer to hear the news with no opinion. Just tell me what happened and where - like on BBC's morning news on NPR. I think this is the problem with most Americans' low grasp of real information.

That's just crazy talk.
How do I know what my opinion is unless someone on telly tells me?