Bring back George...

[tsmith7559]

Dude the study is there for you to read. They took polls and EVERYTHING. no pictures for you to look at though

highlight the Fox viewers being the idiots

 

[hockeywings]

"Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican."

 

[tsmith7559]

"Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican."

from Rev. Al's show?

 

[hockeywings]

?

 

[tsmith7559]

?

your source....basically its a claim that cannot be proved either way

 

[hockeywings]

The source is a scientific study out of maryland university.

 

[tsmith7559]

The source is a scientific study out of maryland university.

enough said...I suppose MSNBC lent them a hand

 

[msuspartan]

That's the power of a Republic. If the people want it then they will vote people in who will fund it.

In a perfect system perhaps. But in a perfect system, communism works too. The problem with communism, and your system as well, is that greed takes over.

I'm sorry, but you aren't making any sense.

Giving states more rights, and the fed less is a more perfect system. You are just trying to discredit anything I say.

 

[hockeywings]

In a perfect system perhaps. But in a perfect system, communism works too. The problem with communism, and your system as well, is that greed takes over.

I'm sorry, but you aren't making any sense.

Giving states more rights, and the fed less is a more perfect system. You are just trying to discredit anything I say.

MSU, I am saying that if we were all perfect you may have a point in your system. But the point is we do not. We have greed and corruption. And with that is why your system will fail. Since I used education as an example last time, this time we will use the EPA. My understanding of Paul's position on the EPA is that it should not be federally regulated but regulated by individual states.

Now, what incentives does a state have to have loose regulations? It's cheaper for business to conduct business, which attracts them to the state, which generates revenue for the state, which in turn lets them provide better services for their constituents.

Now, what incentives does a state have for strict regulations? Curb climate change. Less lawsuits maybe? I really can't think of another one. Please correct me if you have more.

Now, scientists have already confirmed the need to regulate emissions. So we obviously need the regulations. But when states are forced to compete without the regulations set up by the federal government, it is easy to see the race to compete for more businesses which necessarily will lead to the lowering of regulation.

My opinion is we should not have to live in a world that is going down hill because the state next to me doesn't mind you dumping toxic chemicals into the gulf of mexico.

 

[Michchamp]

and not only that, but pollution doesn't stay within the borders of the state; air pollution is obviously a national problem, international really. Ground water contamination doesn't stay within one place either.

 

[msuspartan]

I'm sorry, but you aren't making any sense.

Giving states more rights, and the fed less is a more perfect system. You are just trying to discredit anything I say.

MSU, I am saying that if we were all perfect you may have a point in your system. But the point is we do not. We have greed and corruption. And with that is why your system will fail. Since I used education as an example last time, this time we will use the EPA. My understanding of Paul's position on the EPA is that it should not be federally regulated but regulated by individual states.

Now, what incentives does a state have to have loose regulations? It's cheaper for business to conduct business, which attracts them to the state, which generates revenue for the state, which in turn lets them provide better services for their constituents.

Now, what incentives does a state have for strict regulations? Curb climate change. Less lawsuits maybe? I really can't think of another one. Please correct me if you have more.

Now, scientists have already confirmed the need to regulate emissions. So we obviously need the regulations. But when states are forced to compete without the regulations set up by the federal government, it is easy to see the race to compete for more businesses which necessarily will lead to the lowering of regulation.

My opinion is we should not have to live in a world that is going down hill because the state next to me doesn't mind you dumping toxic chemicals into the gulf of mexico.

In a perfect world we would all be "rich".

Just admit you are a pure socialist. It's that obvious.

If you think this country was founded with the purpose of a strong federal government then you're insane. I hope you are not teaching anyone I know in our education system. I would be appalled.

 

[Michchamp]

wanting companies to pay for the cost of their pollution: socialism.

Actually, among other things, that strikes me as being in the truest free-market, just, fair tradition possible, but if that makes one a socialist, I suppose we should all be socialists.

 

[hockeywings]

MSU, I am saying that if we were all perfect you may have a point in your system. But the point is we do not. We have greed and corruption. And with that is why your system will fail. Since I used education as an example last time, this time we will use the EPA. My understanding of Paul's position on the EPA is that it should not be federally regulated but regulated by individual states.

Now, what incentives does a state have to have loose regulations? It's cheaper for business to conduct business, which attracts them to the state, which generates revenue for the state, which in turn lets them provide better services for their constituents.

Now, what incentives does a state have for strict regulations? Curb climate change. Less lawsuits maybe? I really can't think of another one. Please correct me if you have more.

Now, scientists have already confirmed the need to regulate emissions. So we obviously need the regulations. But when states are forced to compete without the regulations set up by the federal government, it is easy to see the race to compete for more businesses which necessarily will lead to the lowering of regulation.

My opinion is we should not have to live in a world that is going down hill because the state next to me doesn't mind you dumping toxic chemicals into the gulf of mexico.

In a perfect world we would all be "rich".

Just admit you are a pure socialist. It's that obvious.

If you think this country was founded with the purpose of a strong federal government then you're insane. I hope you are not teaching anyone I know in our education system. I would be appalled.

I love how everything is black and white to you. You have shown everyone here that you do not see the consequences of what you propose. And yet, the worst you can call me is a socialist. I'm fine with that. Its not some big scary word to me like it appears to be to you.

I'll tell you a story about last year. I was teaching a financial algebra class and we were going over budgeting. I tied it to the current defect and how we may attempt to solve it. There was a girl in the class I'll call Jill. Jill also had expressed interest in becoming political in her future. Jill is a hardcore conservative. She loves Sarah Palin, bashes Obama every chance she gets. Anyway, the assignment was to cut federal programs to help balance the budget, basically http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

But, Jill had a hard time solving our budgeting woes, because she was so against raising taxes and a lot of the cuts would affect her future and the future of those she knew. Its a small time community, very rural, most go to the military after school.

She is a republican I would vote for. Someone who understands the effect of her choices, yet strives for a balanced approach. In fact, after the year, because I do not involve my politics in the classroom, I still chat with her about politics and ask her who she is voting for or what she thinks about various politicians. I have told her that even though I do not agree with current republicans, if she ever needs someone to help her campaign when she does run, I would go door to door for her because I see good in her brand of politics.