Quote:So jagibelieve was right. The Daily Show is your main source for news. That's truly pathetic.
Game, set, match.
Nowhere did I say it was my main source of News. But keep reaching. I'm sure you get all your news from Fox. Which is even more pathetic.
Checkmate.
Quote:Nowhere did I say it was my main source of News. But keep reaching. I'm sure you get all your news from Fox. Which is even more pathetic.
Checkmate.
Fox News is to liberal for me
Quote:I haven't watched TV news in years, Fox or otherwise.
But how do you find out what you're supposed to think?
Quote:Did you know studies have shown that people who exclusively watch FoxNews actually know less about the world than if they didn't watch any news at all? That's means you get more straight talk standing around the water cooler at work than you do from everybody's favorite 24 hr infotainment broadcasting. Also, did you know that the Daily Show is actually one of the best sources of actual news around?
Anyways, more shenanigans from the corporate right:
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://wtop.com/dc/2015/06/smithsonian-to-improve-ethics-policies-on-research-funding/'>http://wtop.com/dc/2015/06/smithsonian-to-improve-ethics-policies-on-research-funding/</a>
Care to cite any of the "studies"?
A comedy show is actually a better source of actual news? Are you serious?
Quote:The Daily Show isn't bad for news actually. Just like FOX isn't bad for comedy. But I digress. Some of us don't follow the presidential primaries when nothing is going on. Especially when the first primary isn't for another 6 months. We're going to be oversaturated with these candidates to the point where the debates will be pointless.
Once again, are you serious?
Kind of related to
global warming climate change, here is a bit of "homework" or research that I challenge people to do.
As part of President Obama's "electric vehicle initiative" ($2.4
BILLION), a
Norwegian company called Think Global received
$17 million dollars in stimulus money to build "Think City". Google that for a bit and see where the money ended up.
One of the primary investors in Think Global was Ener1. They went belly up after spending
$55 million of a $118 million
grant given to them.
Then there is a company called A123 Systems that received
$249 million in stimulus money. See how that ended up.
Another is a company called Fisker that got a
$538.7 million taxpayer-backed loan. Where does that end up?
The bottom line is, how much of this stuff appears on The Daily Show?
Quote:Care to cite any of the "studies"?
A comedy show is actually a better source of actual news? Are you serious?
Once again, are you serious?
Kind of related to <del>global warming</del> climate change, here is a bit of "homework" or research that I challenge people to do.
As part of President Obama's "electric vehicle initiative" ($2.4 BILLION), a Norwegian company called Think Global received $17 million dollars in stimulus money to build "Think City". Google that for a bit and see where the money ended up.
One of the primary investors in Think Global was Ener1. They went belly up after spending $55 million of a $118 million grant given to them.
Then there is a company called A123 Systems that received $249 million in stimulus money. See how that ended up.
Another is a company called Fisker that got a $538.7 million taxpayer-backed loan. Where does that end up?
The bottom line is, how much of this stuff appears on The Daily Show?
If you actually did any research or 'homework' on global warming, you'd have a vastly different opinion on the subject.
Here's the link to Wikipedia page on the subject:
<a class="bbc_url" href='https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming'>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming</a>
Feel free to edit anything you don't agree with as you do your research (but make sure to provide your sources).
Quote:If you actually did any research or 'homework' on global warming, you'd have a vastly different opinion on the subject.
Here's the link to Wikipedia page on the subject:
<a class="bbc_url" href='https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming'>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming</a>
Feel free to edit anything you don't agree with as you do your research (but make sure to provide your sources).
So rather than give me a link that cites the "studies that have shown that people who exclusively watch Fox News actually know less about the world than if they didn't watch any news at all" you give me a link to a Wikipedia page on global warming. It shouldn't surprise me coming from somebody that thinks that a comedy
entertainment show is "one of the best sources of news around".
I listed several examples of how the "green industry" is siphoning millions upon millions of taxpayer money, and it appears that you refuse to find out the truth for yourself. The whole "green industry" is all about the money. I wonder what political party that the "green industry" has a history of donating to?
Quote:So rather than give me a link that cites the "studies that have shown that people who exclusively watch Fox News actually know less about the world than if they didn't watch any news at all" you give me a link to a Wikipedia page on global warming. It shouldn't surprise me coming from somebody that thinks that a comedy entertainment show is "one of the best sources of news around".
I listed several examples of how the "green industry" is siphoning millions upon millions of taxpayer money, and it appears that you refuse to find out the truth for yourself. The whole "green industry" is all about the money. I wonder what political party that the "green industry" has a history of donating to?
Fox News:
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5'>http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5</a>
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.alternet.org/media/science-fox-news-why-its-viewers-are-most-misinformed'>http://www.alternet.org/media/science-fox-news-why-its-viewers-are-most-misinformed</a>
Daily show:
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v29n2/nojoke.shtml'>http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v29n2/nojoke.shtml</a>
^^That one is more about election coverage than news in general. I would just suggest you view the show for yourself to get the gist of it straight from the horse's mouth.
In regards to your allegations of the green industry "siphoning millions upon millions of taxpayer money," I'd ask to see your source on that before making any comments. Feel free to provide.
Now. It's your turn. Please, read that wiki entry I posted, let me know where you disagree. Heck, if you are feeling froggy you can go ahead and edit the article how ever you think best (as long as you have the citations to provide). Let me know what you think after you do your hw.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://time.com/3941783/china-brazil-usa-climate-change/'>http://time.com/3941783/china-brazil-usa-climate-change/</a>
China will be interesting to keep an eye on in regards to this subject. Lots of coal being burnt there but there is also a surge of solar power going on right now.
Quote:Fox News:
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5'>http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5</a>
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.alternet.org/media/science-fox-news-why-its-viewers-are-most-misinformed'>http://www.alternet.org/media/science-fox-news-why-its-viewers-are-most-misinformed</a>
Daily show:
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v29n2/nojoke.shtml'>http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v29n2/nojoke.shtml</a>
^^That one is more about election coverage than news in general. I would just suggest you view the show for yourself to get the gist of it straight from the horse's mouth.
In regards to your allegations of the green industry "siphoning millions upon millions of taxpayer money," I'd ask to see your source on that before making any comments. Feel free to provide.
Now. It's your turn. Please, read that wiki entry I posted, let me know where you disagree. Heck, if you are feeling froggy you can go ahead and edit the article how ever you think best (as long as you have the citations to provide). Let me know what you think after you do your hw.
Regarding your first two links. The first is a "News Editorial" (if you could call it that) that gives nothing of substance. They supposedly asked people what news sources that they consumed, then "graded" people on whether they were "right or wrong". They don't reveal the questions or answers, only the "grades". What is determined to be "right or wrong" and by what standards?
The second is a clearly biased blog, and the whole facts are not disclosed, only those that support the blogger's point of view.
I was hoping that you would point to a legitimate study rather than blogs or opinion pieces.
Regarding the source of my allegations of the "green industry" siphoning millions of taxpayer money, I cited several cases in my former post. Google them yourself and find out, although you won't do that. Tally up the number of dollars that were in fact wasted by the Obama initiative. Follow the money.
As far as a Wikipedia page regarding global warming, I'm not going to waste my time on it.
Quote:Regarding your first two links. The first is a "News Editorial" (if you could call it that) that gives nothing of substance. They supposedly asked people what news sources that they consumed, then "graded" people on whether they were "right or wrong". They don't reveal the questions or answers, only the "grades". What is determined to be "right or wrong" and by what standards?
Not sure why, but I randomly decided to check in on this topic and skim through the last page or so tonight. I have no idea what you're discussing, so I have no dog in the race so to say, but this post stuck out to me because I generally feel the same way; show me the study rather than someone trying to summarize the study and twisting its words. Which, is why I was so surprised to see the link OFace provided was to BusinessInsider, because they're usually pretty good at sourcing their claims, in my experience with them. So I checked it out.
For the sake of either discussion purposes (if anyone cares) or just to quell any curiosity anyone might have regarding the study: if you click the hyperlink in the first sentence of the BI article (the part that reads "Fox News and MSNBC have a negative impact on people’s current events knowledge") it takes you to the actual study results, with the exact wording of the questions + accepted answers and the findings. Or you should, hopefully, be able to click this link and be taken directly to the study;
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/
Hope this helps, or is at least relevant to
somebody's interests. :thumbsup:
Theres no conspiracy that disrespects the jaguars franchise and spreads the idea that we have blackouts. Its group think and intilectual lazieness. Liberals recieve a high level of emotional return on investment when they think they are saving the world. Add in a biased media and ots easy for the truth to get lost.
And this wouldnt be the first time the scientific community went to sleep. Just google pilt down man.
Quote:Theres no conspiracy that disrespects the jaguars franchise and spreads the idea that we have blackouts. Its group think and intilectual lazieness. Liberals recieve a high level of emotional return on investment when they think they are saving the world. Add in a biased media and ots easy for the truth to get lost.
And this wouldnt be the first time the scientific community went to sleep. Just google pilt down man.
...which brings me to my next point, kids:
Don't Smoke Crack!
You have to excuse me, i was responding from my cellular telephone while waiting in line.
To clarify, my point is simply this, there doesn't have to be a coordinated conspiracy to facilitate the spread of misinformation, all you need is shared bias. There are a lot of people in this country who have demonized capitalism and the growth of the west for a very long time and in this case the green movement is more rationalization than rational justification and there is a difference.
Moreover, i think that going back to the original point of this thread, these statements by the President shouldn't even be allowed in polite company. Think about it. Under his watch we have the rise of the largest most well funded pure terrorist group in the world, and if we continue down the path that we are on we are looking at IRAN absorbing IRAQ to become a super state and we are what about a week from surrendering them the entire region and giving the largest state sponsor of terror a green light to build nuclear weapons. It's plain to anyone objective that the idea that we should be focused on CO2 emissions and just overlook the blatant failures of passivity as a foreign policy is as childish as it is dangerous. The truth is that there are many predictable dangers threatening this country in the short term and the idea that Climate Change is chief among them is on its face, REDICULOUS!
Quote:You have to excuse me, i was responding from my cellular telephone while waiting in line.
To clarify, my point is simply this, there doesn't have to be a coordinated conspiracy to facilitate the spread of misinformation, all you need is shared bias. There are a lot of people in this country who have demonized capitalism and the growth of the west for a very long time and in this case the green movement is more rationalization than rational justification and there is a difference.
Moreover, i think that going back to the original point of this thread, these statements by the President shouldn't even be allowed in polite company. Think about it. Under his watch we have the rise of the largest most well funded pure terrorist group in the world, and if we continue down the path that we are on we are looking at IRAN absorbing IRAQ to become a super state and we are what about a week from surrendering them the entire region and giving the largest state sponsor of terror a green light to build nuclear weapons. It's plain to anyone objective that the idea that we should be focused on CO2 emissions and just overlook the blatant failures of passivity as a foreign policy is as childish as it is dangerous. The truth is that there are many predictable dangers threatening this country in the short term and the idea that Climate Change is chief among them is on its face, REDICULOUS!
Careful. Common sense on this forum is usually not allowed by some.
Quote:You have to excuse me, i was responding from my cellular telephone while waiting in line.
To clarify, my point is simply this, there doesn't have to be a coordinated conspiracy to facilitate the spread of misinformation, all you need is shared bias. There are a lot of people in this country who have demonized capitalism and the growth of the west for a very long time and in this case the green movement is more rationalization than rational justification and there is a difference.
Moreover, i think that going back to the original point of this thread, these statements by the President shouldn't even be allowed in polite company. Think about it. Under his watch we have the rise of the largest most well funded pure terrorist group in the world, and if we continue down the path that we are on we are looking at IRAN absorbing IRAQ to become a super state and we are what about a week from surrendering them the entire region and giving the largest state sponsor of terror a green light to build nuclear weapons. It's plain to anyone objective that the idea that we should be focused on CO2 emissions and just overlook the blatant failures of passivity as a foreign policy is as childish as it is dangerous. The truth is that there are many predictable dangers threatening this country in the short term and the idea that Climate Change is chief among them is on its face, REDICULOUS!
Climate change is not a short term problem. It also has nothing to do with ISIS, nor the demonization of capitalism. And, I would point out, it is not just young American liberals doing this science: it's an international community of scientists from all kinds of political backgrounds from all kinds of countries. If you really think some Swedish scientist crunching numbers cares what dunderheaded American republicans (the only people left on this planet still denying reality) has to say about his work, you suffer from hubris. He is doing his science because it's his job.
Also, I'd mention the science behind global warning is extremely easy to understand. It's fourth grade level science and I can explain it to you if you like.
Quote:I haven't watched TV news in years, Fox or otherwise.
Let me get this straight. You railed against someone back and forth for how many posts for saying you refereed to a conspiracy and then go on shortly after to fabricate something about another poster and present as fact while calling him pathetic? After being called on it you then just ignore it? What's truly pathetic is your hypocrisy here.
Aside from that nonsense, I am enjoying this back and forth when it's not completely full of itself.
Quote:Climate change is not a short term problem. It also has nothing to do with ISIS, nor the demonization of capitalism. And, I would point out, it is not just young American liberals doing this science: it's an international community of scientists from all kinds of political backgrounds from all kinds of countries. If you really think some Swedish scientist crunching numbers cares what dunderheaded American republicans (the only people left on this planet still denying reality) has to say about his work, you suffer from hubris. He is doing his science because it's his job.
Also, I'd mention the science behind global warning is extremely easy to understand. It's fourth grade level science and I can explain it to you if you like.
You're wrong, it will be a short term problem because soon they'll have to change its name again and Anthropogenic Global Climate Change will be removed from our lexicon, just like it's predecessor Man Made Global Warming. That's what happens to foolish ideas when they don't work out as predicted, the hysterics move on to something else and the flock follows right along.
Incidently, you already hear the tagline "providng SUSTAINABLE" this or that in advertising. I wonder what it will be a decade from now!