Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Given NBCs history of falsification, you don't think that NBC have major credibility issues?
I think all sites and networks have credibility issues. Leading the pack is Fox which I hear is a Teaparty strong hold. I watched them deny Obama had won reelection to the point that I was embarrassed for them.
Fox is worse in your estimation because??
Oh yeah, it's slightly biased toward the center.
The rest are extreme far left.
Has fox doctored evidence to incite violence?
NBC has.
Has fox aligned itself with an organization that incites the murder of children?
NBC has.
How about YOUR fellow fanatics view on rape?
She is one of your lot isn't she?
Or is that too inconvenient to your dogma to address?
I think all sites and networks have credibility issues. Leading the pack is Fox which I hear is a Teaparty strong hold. I watched them deny Obama had won reelection to the point that I was embarrassed for them.
Fox is worse in your estimation because??
Oh yeah, it's slightly biased toward the center.
The rest are extreme far left.
Has fox doctored evidence to incite violence?
NBC has.
Has fox aligned itself with an organization that incites the murder of children?
NBC has.
How about YOUR fellow fanatics view on rape?
She is one of your lot isn't she?
Or is that too inconvenient to your dogma to address?
Fox is worse IMO because the few times I have watched it they incite RW nutjobs and lie by omission or just flat out lie. MSNBC is extremely liberal so i dont trust them either. CNN seems to be more center so the rare times I watch TV I have no issue with them.
All those other questions you are ranting about don't make sense to me. You sound unbalanced but you tend to do that I find.
There have been countless studies that prove one way or the other on this subject. It's tiring at this point.
Don't let it get your head, most of you guys have already proven in this thread alone that you are not this rare animal called the "intelligent" conservative.
Apparently, you're not bright enough to realize you're being fed a carefully-crafted vision of the TEA Party by people with a vested interest in portraying them in a bad light.
Trust that I realize both sides carefully craft bad images of each other. However, the Tea Party has had some real humdingers you have to admit. My personal favorite:
If its a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down. -Todd Akin
15 Mind-Numbingly Dumb Things TEApublicans Have Said Lately | Americans Against the Tea Party
Todd Aiken is not a tea party republican.
Whoopie Goldberg is a fanatical liberal totalitarian of the Obamacult though.
Here's her little verbal turdage regarding legitimate rape;-
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nZskUvAGyjQ&desktop_uri=/watch?v=nZskUvAGyjQ
Right after you prove to me that everyone that leans conservative is a Tea Party member. until then you shut up.
Apparently --- only the smarter ones are... It's the MATH SKILLS.. They know the diff between Billions and Trillions..
Thats scary to know. I just thought they were ignorant and harmless. How do they always end up saying stupid stuff on TV that contradicts this study?
Meanwhile, contrary to what the rightie kooks are ranting about, the actual linked study showed:
1. In a college-grad vs. not-college-grad matchup, science intelligence was strongly positively correlated with college attendance. (r = +0.36)
2. In a strongly-religious vs not-strongly-religious matchup, science intelligence was moderately negatively correlated with strong religious beliefs. (r=-0.26)
3. In a liberal vs. conservative matchup, science intelligence was slightly negatively correlated with conservatism. (r= -0.05)
4. In a Tea-Party vs. Non-Tea-Party matchup, science intelligence was slightly positively correlated with Tea Party membership (r=+0.05)
So, Tea Partiers were slightly smarter than the average person. But it didn't compare Tea Partiers to liberals. It compared Tea Partiers to the whole population, a population whose average was dragged down by evangelical creationist cranks.
Hence, it is not possible to make any conclusion concerning Tea Partiers vs. liberals from the study, since they weren't compared. And all the conservatives on this thread failed to grasp that. We can't generalize to all conservatives from such a small sample. We can only conclude the conservatives on this thread have a poor grasp of logic.
Oh, the test was also about vaccine risk, which is more an issue with liberal conspiracy theorists. Hence it's going to be "biased" against liberals, just as, say, a test on nuclear power would be. If the test had been about, say, climate science, conservatives would have ended up looking like raging 'tards across the board. All we see from this example is that, in a test biased against liberals by design, the liberals were still a little smarter than conservatives.
Meanwhile, contrary to what the rightie kooks are ranting about, the actual linked study showed:
1. In a college-grad vs. not-college-grad matchup, science intelligence was strongly positively correlated with college attendance. (r = +0.36)
2. In a strongly-religious vs not-strongly-religious matchup, science intelligence was moderately negatively correlated with strong religious beliefs. (r=-0.26)
3. In a liberal vs. conservative matchup, science intelligence was slightly negatively correlated with conservatism. (r= -0.05)
4. In a Tea-Party vs. Non-Tea-Party matchup, science intelligence was slightly positively correlated with Tea Party membership (r=+0.05)
So, Tea Partiers were slightly smarter than the average person. But it didn't compare Tea Partiers to liberals. It compared Tea Partiers to the whole population, a population whose average was dragged down by evangelical creationist cranks.
Hence, it is not possible to make any conclusion concerning Tea Partiers vs. liberals from the study, since they weren't compared. And all the conservatives on this thread failed to grasp that. We can't generalize to all conservatives from such a small sample. We can only conclude the conservatives on this thread have a poor grasp of logic.
Oh, the test was also about vaccine risk, which is more an issue with liberal conspiracy theorists. Hence it's going to be "biased" against liberals, just as, say, a test on nuclear power would be. If the test had been about, say, climate science, conservatives would have ended up looking like raging 'tards across the board. All we see from this example is that, in a test biased against liberals by design, the liberals were still a little smarter than conservatives.
My experiment proves you guys are not smart and easily led. All I did is pretended to be surprised and you guys fell hook line and sinker.
No it didn't! It made absolutely no comparison between Libs and the Tea Bag Brotherhood. Your false claim only proves the ignorance of the Right!Yes. That's what it said. Tea Partiers are better versed in science than liberals.
It compared Baggers to NON-Baggers, not Libs. The NON-Baggers included the smarter Libs and the dumber CON$ dragging down the Libs score. IOW, it was a comparison between Baggers and Libs with NON-Bagger CON$.
You could REASON this from the study if you had any simple arithmetic skills. Each chart has the breakdown of the sample's participants in the upper right corner. In the Libs/CON$ chart there were 1168 Libs and 1148 CON$ for a total of 2,316. In the Bagger chart there were 430 Baggers and 1886 NON-Baggers for a total of 2,316.
A comparison between Baggers and Libs would have had 430 Baggers and 1168 Libs for a total of 1,598. Since no such study was done then only a stupid fool would claim the study said Baggers were better versed in science than Libs!!!!!
Meanwhile, contrary to what the rightie kooks are ranting about, the actual linked study showed:
1. In a college-grad vs. not-college-grad matchup, science intelligence was strongly positively correlated with college attendance. (r = +0.36)
2. In a strongly-religious vs not-strongly-religious matchup, science intelligence was moderately negatively correlated with strong religious beliefs. (r=-0.26)
3. In a liberal vs. conservative matchup, science intelligence was slightly negatively correlated with conservatism. (r= -0.05)
4. In a Tea-Party vs. Non-Tea-Party matchup, science intelligence was slightly positively correlated with Tea Party membership (r=+0.05)
So, Tea Partiers were slightly smarter than the average person. But it didn't compare Tea Partiers to liberals. It compared Tea Partiers to the whole population, a population whose average was dragged down by evangelical creationist cranks.
Hence, it is not possible to make any conclusion concerning Tea Partiers vs. liberals from the study, since they weren't compared. And all the conservatives on this thread failed to grasp that. We can't generalize to all conservatives from such a small sample. We can only conclude the conservatives on this thread have a poor grasp of logic.
Oh, the test was also about vaccine risk, which is more an issue with liberal conspiracy theorists. Hence it's going to be "biased" against liberals, just as, say, a test on nuclear power would be. If the test had been about, say, climate science, conservatives would have ended up looking like raging 'tards across the board. All we see from this example is that, in a test biased against liberals by design, the liberals were still a little smarter than conservatives.
My experiment proves you guys are not smart and easily led. All I did is pretended to be surprised and you guys fell hook line and sinker.
I saw you claim Todd Aiken was tea party.
You still refuse to address the liberal view of child rape not being rape rape as presented by one of your own.
What is legitimate rape to a liberal?
There have been countless studies that prove one way or the other on this subject. It's tiring at this point.
Don't let it get your head, most of you guys have already proven in this thread alone that you are not this rare animal called the "intelligent" conservative.
So the Tea Party actually raises the Republican average higher instead of lowering it? I too would have thought the reverse was true.
I wonder what blacks do the Democrat average.So the Tea Party actually raises the Republican average higher instead of lowering it? I too would have thought the reverse was true.
So the Tea Party actually raises the Republican average higher instead of lowering it? I too would have thought the reverse was true.
Why would you have had that misconception?
I wonder what blacks do the Democrat average.So the Tea Party actually raises the Republican average higher instead of lowering it? I too would have thought the reverse was true.
Well, a bit incongruous, but then if blacks raise the Democrat average you have to seriously wonder if Democrat are indeed as ignorant as they seem.I wonder what blacks do the Democrat average.So the Tea Party actually raises the Republican average higher instead of lowering it? I too would have thought the reverse was true.
Since its higher than the GOP's they probably raise it.
Well, a bit incongruous, but then if blacks raise the Democrat average you have to seriously wonder if Democrat are indeed as ignorant as they seem.I wonder what blacks do the Democrat average.
Since its higher than the GOP's they probably raise it.
So the Tea Party actually raises the Republican average higher instead of lowering it? I too would have thought the reverse was true.
Why would you have had that misconception?
Because I was doing an experiment.
So then black Democrats are more scientifically knowledgeable than their white counterparts?!Well, a bit incongruous, but then if blacks raise the Democrat average you have to seriously wonder if Democrat are indeed as ignorant as they seem.Since its higher than the GOP's they probably raise it.
Whatever the level of ignorance they still are ahead of the GOP in intelligence.
Whew.
