Liberal Bias In Media Exposed..Again

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Who ever said I was a liberal?

Todd[/quote]

went back and read a bunch of your old posts.
You pop out of the woodwork, toss a couple of well written insults against conservatives, Bush, guns or what have you, and disapear.

And when did I bring up poverty?
I said that the libs in this country had been fighting the war on poverty for 50 years and apparently coming no where near winning…and I said that most of the poor people in this country have it a lot better than the poor people of other countries.
What else?
And as for that “logical principal wrongly applied” crap–did you read the explanation from Wilkpedia? No where in it did it say anything about digging to the root of the problem or doing exhaustive research.
It still boils down to the simplest explanation possible. In fact, I believe the Wilkpedia definition offered “KISS-keep it simple stupid” as an explanation.
I also know what Professors Shea and Cook drilled into me about it. I’m sorry that you’re so much smarter than they, and that I didn’t have the chance to sit by your knee and bask in your obvious brilliance.

162

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Rainjack,

You must have missed a fairly detailed post that I made with regard to the topic of the thread. Please go back and feel free to read that.

If someone tries to dismiss another’s argument using a logical principle, and that principle is wrongly applied, then I feel a response to that misuse in order to nullify it is perfectly acceptable.

If you care to review the exchange between Joe and myself further, you may notice that I asked him several straightforward questions. Joe failed to answer these questions at all during this discourse. I made a point of answering questions that he posed to me.

If you still have further questions, on or off topic, I would be more than happy to attempt to answer them.

Todd[/quote]

You have answered nothing, nor have you responded to my request. What you are more than capable of is attempting to make yourself appear way more intelligent than you actually are. It is not working - at least for me. But I’ve worked with cattle my whole life, and can identify bullshit at the slightest hint of it. You, however, have stepped in the whole turd.

If you are referring to your post about Fox News, I would hardly consider asking more questions as making a point. I would also question you logic wrt the conclusions you have drawn.

Just because you fancy yourself as smart, or intelligent, does not make it so. To make a point of referring to your intelligence in the majority of your posts smacks of a fake.

163

[quote]vroom wrote:

My comment, was simply that Todd was being insulted. I certainly didn’t congratulate anyone on doing the insulting. Talk about being so damned slanted you can’t even see straight.

So, I haven’t weighed in on the issues being discussed between Todd and Joe, I haven’t congratulated anyone, and I haven’t stated anything resembling an opinion on the thread by trying to offer moral support to someone who was obviously frustrated and probably pissed off.

It looks like three posters at least need to check their radiation levels…[/quote]

vroom…maybe you need to have your gieger counter checked, because Todd wasn’t being insulted. He jumped in and landed on me, and I tried to play nice with him–cause that’s how you do things.
Hell, I even apologized to him for his perception that I was insulting ProfX (which I wasn’t, but if it was taken as such I’m certainly sorry…).
So who the hell was being insulted and needed moral support?

164

Aw, I’m sorry Joe, were you feeling picked on? I don’t want to be accused of having a liberal bias… stick to your guns too buddy!

165

[quote]vroom wrote:
Aw, I’m sorry Joe, were you feeling picked on? I don’t want to be accused of having a liberal bias… stick to your guns too buddy![/quote]

Thanks vroom!
I always say: “god love the canadians, a great group of people!”

:wink:

166

[quote]ZEB wrote:
How many times do I have to tell you guys? Okay, once more:

“Liberal debate style”

  1. When the facts are agaisnt you attack the facts as being wrong. Things like, “the data came from a small source.” Here’s one": “That study is outdated, no one believes that crap.”

  2. When the above does not work, attack the person, or organizaton who has the facts. “Those people are biased everyone knows that, how stupid are you?” “You have way to much time on your hands, must be a loser.” “Everyone knows that all republicans are racist, evil, corporate types.”

  3. If neither of the above two work you must try to confuse the issue by constantly changing the playing field. If you want to discuss media bias, they will conveniently change the topic to any number of things. “Hey how about those Mets.”

Ha ha, you get the idea…the longer I live the less respect that I have for a politically liberal viewpoint.

It’s not like they have a history of ever being right on a topic. Remember the 1980’s? Reagen won the cold war that decade while his liberal political opponents were screaming for a “nuclear freeze.” Okay…that’s another topic… but there are so many instances.[/quote]

Hilarious, Zeb
You’ve in fact outlined the conservative method for debating except you missed point 4 which would be to shout over your liberal opponent, followed by an attack at the liberal opponent’s patriotism, or manliness etc…

Then you make the mistake of forgetting you live a life in a country defined by liberal policies, regardless of what president/party set them forth, from Ikes interstate highways, S.S., voting rights, epa, workers rights, public schools/universities, rural electrification, and on and on and on, basically everything you take advantage of from morning to night. Again I’m not saying a Dem was responsible, just talking liberal/consevative.

And yes the 80’s, an administration that:
“almost” tripled the natl. debt.,
gave us the largest percentage tank in the DOW ever,
refused to talk/deal about aids,
claimed “trees cause more pollution than automobiles”,
“We did not–repeat, did not–trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we,”
worst recession since depression (That was Herber Hoover,republican),
President testifying 130 times “I don’t recall”,
#1 in farm foreclosures,
#1 in personal bankruptcies,
S and L bailout,
had 100 members charged with crimes,
double digit unemployment,
Backed Saddam,
Backed death squads in central america,
sold weapons to terrorists,
massive redistubution of wealth to the wealth through huge tax cuts on the wealthy and huge tax increases on the rest.

And reagan won the cold war, along with all the presidents before him to Truman who started the containment policies that all presidents continued following him as the CIA told Reagan when he took office.

Liberals for nuclear freeze.? Uhmm…all the presidents before him subscribed to nuclear disarmament,starting with Ike all the way to Nixon, good Lord! the soviets had no advantage in 1980, and could barely handle afghanistan or control it’s warsaw pact allies…so what the hell are you talking about, what the hell do you love about needless spending? You didn’t seem to mind when cheney took the axe to the defense budget.

so yeah how bout them 80’s, lets all celebrate how succesful those conservative policies worked out!
Even bush senior could barely tax his way through Reagan’s mess.
But what charisma Reagan had! and the decision making speaks for itself, witness:
“Virtually every major move and decision the Reagans made during my time as White House Chief of Staff was cleared in advance with a woman in San Francisco who drew up horoscopes to make certain that the planets were in a favorable alignment for the enterprise.”
–Donald Regan (Reagan’s former chief of staff), For the Record: From Wall Street to Washington.
Oh the pain.
Next time pimp IKE, he kicked ass for real.

Now would be a good time to try your 1,2,3 step method of debating.

167

[quote]rainjack wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
Rainjack,

You must have missed a fairly detailed post that I made with regard to the topic of the thread. Please go back and feel free to read that.

If someone tries to dismiss another’s argument using a logical principle, and that principle is wrongly applied, then I feel a response to that misuse in order to nullify it is perfectly acceptable.

If you care to review the exchange between Joe and myself further, you may notice that I asked him several straightforward questions. Joe failed to answer these questions at all during this discourse. I made a point of answering questions that he posed to me.

If you still have further questions, on or off topic, I would be more than happy to attempt to answer them.

Todd

You have answered nothing, nor have you responded to my request. What you are more than capable of is attempting to make yourself appear way more intelligent than you actually are. It is not working - at least for me. But I’ve worked with cattle my whole life, and can identify bullshit at the slightest hint of it. You, however, have stepped in the whole turd.

If you are referring to your post about Fox News, I would hardly consider asking more questions as making a point. I would also question you logic wrt the conclusions you have drawn.

Just because you fancy yourself as smart, or intelligent, does not make it so. To make a point of referring to your intelligence in the majority of your posts smacks of a fake.

[/quote]

If you disagree with the conclusions I draw, please explain why they are wrong and then elucidate us as to the proper conclusions to be drawn.

Saying you can call bullshit because you are good at calling bullshit is a great argument though RJ.

Todd

168

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
Who ever said I was a liberal?

Todd

went back and read a bunch of your old posts.
You pop out of the woodwork, toss a couple of well written insults against conservatives, Bush, guns or what have you, and disapear.

And when did I bring up poverty?
I said that the libs in this country had been fighting the war on poverty for 50 years and apparently coming no where near winning…and I said that most of the poor people in this country have it a lot better than the poor people of other countries.
What else?
And as for that “logical principal wrongly applied” crap–did you read the explanation from Wilkpedia? No where in it did it say anything about digging to the root of the problem or doing exhaustive research.
It still boils down to the simplest explanation possible. In fact, I believe the Wilkpedia definition offered “KISS-keep it simple stupid” as an explanation.
I also know what Professors Shea and Cook drilled into me about it. I’m sorry that you’re so much smarter than they, and that I didn’t have the chance to sit by your knee and bask in your obvious brilliance.
[/quote]

Joe,

 Here is a direct quote from one of your posts:

“There is less poverty in America than anywhere in the world. Yet we’ve been fighting the “War on Poverty” for 50 years. And every 2 years the libs march before us and scream and cry about how it’s worse than ever.”

Please spare me your revision. If you say the wrong thing, excuse yourself, correct yourself, and remind yourself to check your facts in the future.

As for your wikipedia definition, it had the same definition contained in it that I had stated when I originally corrected you. I don’t know how many ways you want me to say this. Your own article, that you posted, contained the same definition, verbatim, that I used for Occham’s Razor. Yet, you used that posted article in an attempt to claim that you were right and I was wrong.

I am sure that both Professor Shea and Professor Cook are very intelligent people. It is unfortunate that you did not fully understand the lessons they were trying to teach you.

Let me ask you this: If an explanation can be proven false with data analysis, does it continue to be an explanation?

Todd

169

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
Who ever said I was a liberal?

Todd

went back and read a bunch of your old posts.
You pop out of the woodwork, toss a couple of well written insults against conservatives, Bush, guns or what have you, and disapear.

And when did I bring up poverty?
I said that the libs in this country had been fighting the war on poverty for 50 years and apparently coming no where near winning…and I said that most of the poor people in this country have it a lot better than the poor people of other countries.
What else?
And as for that “logical principal wrongly applied” crap–did you read the explanation from Wilkpedia? No where in it did it say anything about digging to the root of the problem or doing exhaustive research.
It still boils down to the simplest explanation possible. In fact, I believe the Wilkpedia definition offered “KISS-keep it simple stupid” as an explanation.
I also know what Professors Shea and Cook drilled into me about it. I’m sorry that you’re so much smarter than they, and that I didn’t have the chance to sit by your knee and bask in your obvious brilliance.

Joe,

 Here is a direct quote from one of your posts:

“There is less poverty in America than anywhere in the world. Yet we’ve been fighting the “War on Poverty” for 50 years. And every 2 years the libs march before us and scream and cry about how it’s worse than ever.”

Please spare me your revision. If you say the wrong thing, excuse yourself, correct yourself, and remind yourself to check your facts in the future.

As for your wikipedia definition, it had the same definition contained in it that I had stated when I originally corrected you. I don’t know how many ways you want me to say this. Your own article, that you posted, contained the same definition, verbatim, that I used for Occham’s Razor. Yet, you used that posted article in an attempt to claim that you were right and I was wrong.

I am sure that both Professor Shea and Professor Cook are very intelligent people. It is unfortunate that you did not fully understand the lessons they were trying to teach you.

Let me ask you this: If an explanation can be proven false with data analysis, does it continue to be an explanation?

Todd[/quote]

As I said, it depends on your definition of poverty. Why is this so hard to get through your head?
What counts as poverty in this country–for the most part–would be considered damn fine living in other parts of the world, and yet we get lumped together with those other parts of the world.
As for the Occam’s Razor crap: I never said you were wrong and I was right, I actually said we were arguing over what kind of apple it was. That is to say: you took one of the definitions from that article, and I took another.
There were more than one, therefore I’m going to assume there’s more than one correct answer.
And I must have taken the time to learn something they were teaching me, as I got A’s in both classes.
In fact, one of Prof Shea’s favorite sayings about the Razor was to the effect that–confronted by the pyramids, you don’t go looking for the ET’s that beamed them into place, you look for the quarries. It doesn’t get much more KISS than that. And that was without doing all sorts of reasearch into the existance of life on other planets etc.
Which it sounds like you would have had to do before making up your mind.

170

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
Rainjack,

You must have missed a fairly detailed post that I made with regard to the topic of the thread. Please go back and feel free to read that.

If someone tries to dismiss another’s argument using a logical principle, and that principle is wrongly applied, then I feel a response to that misuse in order to nullify it is perfectly acceptable.

If you care to review the exchange between Joe and myself further, you may notice that I asked him several straightforward questions. Joe failed to answer these questions at all during this discourse. I made a point of answering questions that he posed to me.

If you still have further questions, on or off topic, I would be more than happy to attempt to answer them.

Todd

You have answered nothing, nor have you responded to my request. What you are more than capable of is attempting to make yourself appear way more intelligent than you actually are. It is not working - at least for me. But I’ve worked with cattle my whole life, and can identify bullshit at the slightest hint of it. You, however, have stepped in the whole turd.

If you are referring to your post about Fox News, I would hardly consider asking more questions as making a point. I would also question you logic wrt the conclusions you have drawn.

Just because you fancy yourself as smart, or intelligent, does not make it so. To make a point of referring to your intelligence in the majority of your posts smacks of a fake.

If you disagree with the conclusions I draw, please explain why they are wrong and then elucidate us as to the proper conclusions to be drawn.

Saying you can call bullshit because you are good at calling bullshit is a great argument though RJ.

Todd
[/quote]

Tell you what, Todd…dealing with you,calling bullshit and moving on seems to be as good as any other way of dealing. Because you don’t seem to be smart enough to grasp what any of us are saying–you merely puff yourself up and type endlessly about how intelligent you are and how unintelligent we are.
If you were really smarter than we, you’d not find it necessary to trumpet it all the time.
You’ll notice–Zeb doesn’t, RainJack doesn’t, I don’t, and the good ProfX doesn’t.
Why do you?

171

You are equating voting percentages with actual market demographics. Fine. But it is not an accurate description of the marketplace. The rise in Rush Limbaugh’s radio audience was a pretty good indicator to Murdoch that there was indeed an untapped market for news with a more right-leaning news format. His success proves this.

I’m not even sure of the relevance of this ‘argument’. Are you saying that CNN is better because more people switch the channel after watching them? During election night, Fox’s coverage outdrew CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC combined. An interesting proof to your theory that CNN draws more unique viewers would be to take a look at advertising rates. Follow the money, not the eggheads.

Once again - relevance? You have a lot of elderly people who still trust the talking heads on NBC, ABC, or CBS.

Additionally you are comparing a News Commentary show to the actual reporting of the news. Apples and oranges. Needless to say O’Reilly beats the pants off every other cable news channel’s offerings.

Once again you are trying to equate voter turnout with maket demographics. Not a valid assumption to make. You are also assuming that Fox News is as readily accessible as the networks afferings. It’s not. Bad assumption once again.

This is an argument? For which side? Any of the news outlets can be interchanged for Fox News in your little equation and it would still be true. What is you point?

You logically conclude these points based on what? Faulty assumptions? I see nothing in your previous 5 points that even get you to your 6th. What leads you to conclude that Fox is “so radically conservative that it creates the illusion of objectivity”? There is nothing in this post that even broaches that subject. And for a third time you equat market demographics with voter turnout.

Like my other posts have alluded to - just because you fancy yourself as an intellectual does not make it so. this particular post that I have responded to - at your request - is Bullshit.

I think someone sold you a mule and told you it was a racehorse. You have neither the ability, nor the intellectual wherewithal to win a race down here on the mule you are riding. You can believe in your ‘racehorse’ all you want, but that’s not gonna get you across the finish line first. Even in a debate against a bumkin like me, you lose. Please don’t try this little game with the big-uns’ like BB, or Thunderbolt. I hate to see grown men cry. You are a grown man, right? Right?

172

[quote]100meters wrote:
ZEB wrote:
How many times do I have to tell you guys? Okay, once more:

“Liberal debate style”

  1. When the facts are agaisnt you attack the facts as being wrong. Things like, “the data came from a small source.” Here’s one": “That study is outdated, no one believes that crap.”

  2. When the above does not work, attack the person, or organizaton who has the facts. “Those people are biased everyone knows that, how stupid are you?” “You have way to much time on your hands, must be a loser.” “Everyone knows that all republicans are racist, evil, corporate types.”

  3. If neither of the above two work you must try to confuse the issue by constantly changing the playing field. If you want to discuss media bias, they will conveniently change the topic to any number of things. “Hey how about those Mets.”

Ha ha, you get the idea…the longer I live the less respect that I have for a politically liberal viewpoint.

It’s not like they have a history of ever being right on a topic. Remember the 1980’s? Reagen won the cold war that decade while his liberal political opponents were screaming for a “nuclear freeze.” Okay…that’s another topic… but there are so many instances.

Hilarious, Zeb
You’ve in fact outlined the conservative method for debating except you missed point 4 which would be to shout over your liberal opponent, followed by an attack at the liberal opponent’s patriotism, or manliness etc…

Then you make the mistake of forgetting you live a life in a country defined by liberal policies, regardless of what president/party set them forth, from Ikes interstate highways, S.S., voting rights, epa, workers rights, public schools/universities, rural electrification, and on and on and on, basically everything you take advantage of from morning to night. Again I’m not saying a Dem was responsible, just talking liberal/consevative.

And yes the 80’s, an administration that:
“almost” tripled the natl. debt.,
gave us the largest percentage tank in the DOW ever,
refused to talk/deal about aids,
claimed “trees cause more pollution than automobiles”,
“We did not–repeat, did not–trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we,”
worst recession since depression (That was Herber Hoover,republican),
President testifying 130 times “I don’t recall”,
#1 in farm foreclosures,
#1 in personal bankruptcies,
S and L bailout,
had 100 members charged with crimes,
double digit unemployment,
Backed Saddam,
Backed death squads in central america,
sold weapons to terrorists,
massive redistubution of wealth to the wealth through huge tax cuts on the wealthy and huge tax increases on the rest.

And reagan won the cold war, along with all the presidents before him to Truman who started the containment policies that all presidents continued following him as the CIA told Reagan when he took office.

Liberals for nuclear freeze.? Uhmm…all the presidents before him subscribed to nuclear disarmament,starting with Ike all the way to Nixon, good Lord! the soviets had no advantage in 1980, and could barely handle afghanistan or control it’s warsaw pact allies…so what the hell are you talking about, what the hell do you love about needless spending? You didn’t seem to mind when cheney took the axe to the defense budget.

so yeah how bout them 80’s, lets all celebrate how succesful those conservative policies worked out!
Even bush senior could barely tax his way through Reagan’s mess.
But what charisma Reagan had! and the decision making speaks for itself, witness:
“Virtually every major move and decision the Reagans made during my time as White House Chief of Staff was cleared in advance with a woman in San Francisco who drew up horoscopes to make certain that the planets were in a favorable alignment for the enterprise.”
–Donald Regan (Reagan’s former chief of staff), For the Record: From Wall Street to Washington.
Oh the pain.
Next time pimp IKE, he kicked ass for real.

Now would be a good time to try your 1,2,3 step method of debating.

[/quote]

Doggone it! I know you are Lumpy! Come on guys…doesn’t he read like Lumpy? He makes about as much sense as Lumpy did…I just know he’s Lumpy.

vroom…is this guy Lumpy or not? Come on now…tell me the truth!

173

ZEB, who’s Lumpy?

174

I seriously can not even believe this is a debate. For the last 30 years, liberally biased views have dominated the news. I can’t believe any conservative or liberal would refute this. In the last few years, we now have a news channel that is conservatively biased - Fox news. I hope we start having even more news channels that are conservatively biased to balance out all the extreme liberal crap news that has been positioned as objective reporting for the last few decades.

The more the liberals on this thread argue until their blue in the face that the majority of the news has NOT been liberally biased over the years, the more ridiculous they look.

Please, let’s just call a spade a spade here. We won’t think less of you. Just admit it.

175

“6. Therefore, I logically conclude one of three scenarios. Either the media as a whole is actually not liberally biased, Fox News is actually so radically conservative that it creates the illusion of objectivity in less radical but still slightly liberal organizations, or the election was a fluke and America is actually populated by a bunch of liberal sympathizers.”

Your ‘logic’ is myopic and doesn’t account for basic commonsense variables such as variety in preferences merely for the sake of variety.

I am a conservative - I watch CNN, ABC, CBS, MSBC, and FOX, at various times depending on what the various channels happen to be discussing.

Your ‘logic’ presupposes an exclusivity among viewing that doesn’t exist. None of my friends, liberal, conservative, or other, break their news viewing into such predictably partisan choices.

Not only that, but you are including ‘news analysis’ shows as part of your ‘proof’ - but no one thinks the O’Reilly Factor is straight news, so it can’t possibly be an example of biased ‘news’. Critics of liberal media are not referring to op-ed stuff.

So using the demographics of viewership is fundamentally flawed as a determinant of whether or not the mainstream media has a liberal bent. To determine whether the bias exists or not is to to examine story choice, issue coverage, and presentation of facts.

176

[quote]randman wrote:
I seriously can not even believe this is a debate. For the last 30 years, liberally biased views have dominated the news. I can’t believe any conservative or liberal would refute this. In the last few years, we now have a news channel that is conservatively biased - Fox news. I hope we start having even more news channels that are conservatively biased to balance out all the extreme liberal crap news that has been positioned as objective reporting for the last few decades.

The more the liberals on this thread argue until their blue in the face that the majority of the news has NOT been liberally biased over the years, the more ridiculous they look.

Please, let’s just call a spade a spade here. We won’t think less of you. Just admit it.[/quote]

I guess you didn’t agree with the conclusions in this study that basically disproved the title of this thread? The other networks were more neutral than fox, i.e. less biased (more objective). Other studies have shown fox viewers are less informed than the other networks. So why the hell would you want more like fox, Better would be to improve those that are already more neutral and more informative. So if you want to call a spade a spade, call fox, tell them to get with the program.

177

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Doggone it! I know you are Lumpy! Come on guys…doesn’t he read like Lumpy? He makes about as much sense as Lumpy did…I just know he’s Lumpy.

vroom…is this guy Lumpy or not? Come on now…tell me the truth!

[/quote]

Ahh! smart Zeb, you went with debate style number three:

  1. If neither of the above two work you must try to confuse the issue by constantly changing the playing field. If you want to discuss media bias(or the 80’s), they will conveniently change the topic to any number of things. “Hey how about those Mets.” or “Lumpy”
178

[quote]100meters wrote:
randman wrote:
I seriously can not even believe this is a debate. For the last 30 years, liberally biased views have dominated the news. I can’t believe any conservative or liberal would refute this. In the last few years, we now have a news channel that is conservatively biased - Fox news. I hope we start having even more news channels that are conservatively biased to balance out all the extreme liberal crap news that has been positioned as objective reporting for the last few decades.

The more the liberals on this thread argue until their blue in the face that the majority of the news has NOT been liberally biased over the years, the more ridiculous they look.

Please, let’s just call a spade a spade here. We won’t think less of you. Just admit it.

I guess you didn’t agree with the conclusions in this study that basically disproved the title of this thread? The other networks were more neutral than fox, i.e. less biased (more objective). Other studies have shown fox viewers are less informed than the other networks. So why the hell would you want more like fox, Better would be to improve those that are already more neutral and more informative. So if you want to call a spade a spade, call fox, tell them to get with the program.

[/quote]

I don’t need a study to confirm what I can observe on my own. This study is also taken at one point in time. My contention is over the last couple of decades the major news channels have been liberally biased. Are you using this study as a thin veil to hide this fact?

179

[quote]100meters wrote:
Other studies have shown fox viewers are less informed than the other networks. [/quote]

Please post the link, or cite these ‘studies’. At least name one. I think this falls under the 'Making Shit Up" category

[quote]… call fox, tell them to get with the program.
[/quote]

Why would Fox want to get with any program other than the bank-filling one they are on right now?

180

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
Who ever said I was a liberal?

Todd

went back and read a bunch of your old posts.
You pop out of the woodwork, toss a couple of well written insults against conservatives, Bush, guns or what have you, and disapear.

And when did I bring up poverty?
I said that the libs in this country had been fighting the war on poverty for 50 years and apparently coming no where near winning…and I said that most of the poor people in this country have it a lot better than the poor people of other countries.
What else?
And as for that “logical principal wrongly applied” crap–did you read the explanation from Wilkpedia? No where in it did it say anything about digging to the root of the problem or doing exhaustive research.
It still boils down to the simplest explanation possible. In fact, I believe the Wilkpedia definition offered “KISS-keep it simple stupid” as an explanation.
I also know what Professors Shea and Cook drilled into me about it. I’m sorry that you’re so much smarter than they, and that I didn’t have the chance to sit by your knee and bask in your obvious brilliance.

Joe,

 Here is a direct quote from one of your posts:

“There is less poverty in America than anywhere in the world. Yet we’ve been fighting the “War on Poverty” for 50 years. And every 2 years the libs march before us and scream and cry about how it’s worse than ever.”

Please spare me your revision. If you say the wrong thing, excuse yourself, correct yourself, and remind yourself to check your facts in the future.

As for your wikipedia definition, it had the same definition contained in it that I had stated when I originally corrected you. I don’t know how many ways you want me to say this. Your own article, that you posted, contained the same definition, verbatim, that I used for Occham’s Razor. Yet, you used that posted article in an attempt to claim that you were right and I was wrong.

I am sure that both Professor Shea and Professor Cook are very intelligent people. It is unfortunate that you did not fully understand the lessons they were trying to teach you.

Let me ask you this: If an explanation can be proven false with data analysis, does it continue to be an explanation?

Todd

As I said, it depends on your definition of poverty. Why is this so hard to get through your head?
What counts as poverty in this country–for the most part–would be considered damn fine living in other parts of the world, and yet we get lumped together with those other parts of the world.
As for the Occam’s Razor crap: I never said you were wrong and I was right, I actually said we were arguing over what kind of apple it was. That is to say: you took one of the definitions from that article, and I took another.
There were more than one, therefore I’m going to assume there’s more than one correct answer.
And I must have taken the time to learn something they were teaching me, as I got A’s in both classes.
In fact, one of Prof Shea’s favorite sayings about the Razor was to the effect that–confronted by the pyramids, you don’t go looking for the ET’s that beamed them into place, you look for the quarries. It doesn’t get much more KISS than that. And that was without doing all sorts of reasearch into the existance of life on other planets etc.
Which it sounds like you would have had to do before making up your mind.

[/quote]

Joe,

Examine the statement “you look for the quarries.” Contemplate that your professor presenting a metaphor. Now explain to me how that is not analogous to investigating the facts surrounding a situation. Your prof didn’t say, “Look at the pyramids, scoff at those who suggest aliens built them, and simply declare that humans must have built them.” By finding the quarries, or doing the necessary research, you supply the information necessary to support your claim. It seems clear that haven’t really considered this aspect of what your professor was saying. So I will stick with my assessment that your prof is an intelligent guy, and you failed to learn what he was trying to teach. Congats on the good grades.

I don’t think you understand what you were saying originally with reqards to poverty. That, or you are intentionally ignoring it. In any case, the US is not the world leader for lowest poverty rate. Neither is it the world leader for per capita income. Is it high in the standings? Absolutely. But several countries have lower poverty and higher per capita. Words mean things, Joe. It frequently pays dividends to ensure that the words you intend to use are correct.

Todd