A fragment to prove I do my own research. I'm not a sheeple.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-about-polarization-in-america/

It's an interesting read and explains a lot about USA's American culture.

 

you're the director of political research at Pew?

 

Proves you are a researcher doesn't say anything of your biological affiliations.
A sheeple? You mean female people?

 

Sheeple, is a made-up term by conspiracy theorists, towards anybody else who don't seem to share their point if view and whose opinions are near verbatim from what is mentioned in mainstream media circles.

It's implied those are "sheeple", are dumb and ignorant, and it's really quite an insult.

No, but I am a citizen who can look up direct polling research data, and compare that to how the media spins something like a poll.

Given that some people here have claimed myself and others "don't do our own research", I thought I'd make this thread to prove a point.

 

I was pulling your leg. The first time I heard sheeple implying people were easily led or herd like from a liberal democrat who was very level headed and not conspiracy minded. The second time I heard it was from R. Maddow on T.V.

Sorry you took offense to the point of thinking you had to defend yourself to prove you weren't a sheeple. A lot of us root for the home team.
A sense of humor makes the otherwise thin skinned impervious to pricks.

I would point out that someone looking for that napkin that that girls number was on is a researcher so it is not all that to beat your chest about.

You have good political senses and that is your sway.

 

There was nothing at all surprising in that article. Not that you said there was. It was interesting still anyways. Although I agree with most of the comments at the bottom that they should have included somewhere in there people who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative as there are a lot of people like that.


Not sure what the article has to do with being or not being a sheeple though.

 

It doesn't. It has to do with him being insulted.

 

But why are you concerned with validating yourself and your knowledge to an obviously mentally ill person?
It won't make an iota of difference.

for what it's worth I have always thought you were very thorough and accurate in your assessments. :2thumbsup:

 

Whether I 100% always agree with the OP is irrelevant. Have always thought he was informed.

Yea, anyways, I wouldn't bother trying to prove anything to anyone on here. What's the point?

 

Agreed.

To one's inner self, it is true it shouldn't make one iota of a difference, but it is also unwise to let one's character go undefended.

If enough people say you are a liar or are (whatever), for a long enough time, even if you aren't a liar, that persistence upon the person slandering your name and reputation WILL gain traction.

That's what this post was about, although I am happy to know I am seen as a credible and valued contributor to the discussions here.

 

repeatedly shouting that "you are all a bunch of Liberal, Obama loving, government dependent, war mongering idiots" doesn't make it true and really requires no rebuttal because it is so absolutely ludicrous.

That has been the tactic a certain member has employed and I doubt he has altered anyone's views regarding you or anyone else except to make himself appear even more unstable.

I think we all know who you made this thread in response to

 

Perhaps referring to the George Orwell book: Animal Farm; where the resident sheep would always go with the program while spouting party slogans

 

Good analogy did he coin that word?

 

no


four legs, good; two legs, baaad

 

I wonder what was going on in 2005. In the linked article, that's the year that the GOP graph started moving rapidly to the right. I'm testing my memory here. Baby Bush was one year into his second term, and no major wars were starting or ending. Rush Limbaugh was already popular, and Sarah Palin was still unknown, nationally. Was there a spike in the ratings of Fox News that year?

 

Well you have to look at the Drudge Report too. As that blog of various new links holds more sway than Fox News ever will.

 

It gives data about it but it doesn’t answer the question of why.

I’m sure that for most this information comes as no surprise – but why has this happened?

*

I’d first say that seems to do that thing of mixing up left wing and liberal with a separate ring wing.

I’d have left wing (left) liberal (centre right) right wing (further to right) was closer to reality. The problem with the American context being that there is no real ‘left’ so the liberals are seen as the left.

*
Some musings on why -

Is it propaganda and the media, there’s a good programme at the moment on the BBC that explains how sophisticated advertising has become in the last 30 years and those techniques are not just used to sell goods and services but also to sell us the political product.

Did the end of the Fairness Doctrine in the late eighties and the setting up of Fox news give it a push?

Was it the fall of the soviet ‘evil empire’ while it existed there was something that held together right of centre liberals and those further to the right. Once the wall came down the gloves came off.

Is it increased (and increasing) inequality?

*

 

There was a Presidential election in November of 2004, and I suppose there could have been some time lag involved in measuring its impact via this one particular poll.

 

monkjr, I understand completely what 'sheeple' means. It means, people who act in the nature of sheep. Follow the leader, do what the flock does, etc. But I'm sure you don't want to discuss that and so I'll move on to what I 'think' you want to discuss.

I think it's 'my' hot button issue too and that is that in the US and now in Canada, nobody is questioning the narrative of the media. I'll give an example of what I recently heard on the CBC. The news program's host stated that 'hundreds have been killed in the fighting in Gaza'. (roughly quoted) It was a true statement in that there had been hundreds of Palestinians killed and one Jewish (Israeli) (Zionist) person killed.

This is consistently the media narrative, more so in the US than in Canada but it seems that Canada is catching up now and that could be due to CBC bowing to pressure from our Conservative government. It could also be due to a shift in the politics of Canadians that is making us more accepting to the false and twisted narrative.

I'm sure many won't even recognize there is a problem with how the news is presented to us. I'm not so sure that it's being presented to the people of Europe in such a biased and twisted way. Do you or others even accept that there is a problem? I'll go no further is trying to explain the problem because first of all it's necessary to gain the perception of how others are seeing it all.

In the US? In Canada? In Europe? In Russia? In China? In other countries in respect to their media's reporting of the news?

 

The repeal of he 'Fairness doctrine' has given the talking heads and particularly the right wing, carte blanche to say ANYTHING without allowing the subject/person being talked about- recourse for rebuttal. That's exactly why the right is so against it. If it was re-instituted, the outrageous rhetoric employed by Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, et al, would HAVE to be toned down and actually adhere more to truth, instead of the constant, inflammatory bleatings from the protectors (ass kissers) of the 1%. The repeal has A HELL OF A LOT to do with the way in which Fox and those I mentioned, behave.