US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study

[Hangernaid 1]

If you notice this study was done by 2 very liberal professors. It is total propaganda. Most Americans are not for more gun control, and most Americans think the Climate Change Nazis are up to their noses in cocaine or something. Once you read those 2 points, you understand that these 2 professors started with a belief and then found arguments to support their belief. That is the scientific method turned ###-backward.

[UncleBeer 244]

If you notice this study was done by 2 very liberal professors. It is total propaganda.

Ahhhh, but this is the New Science!

[Póg mo 1,749]

If you notice this study was done by 2 very liberal professors. It is total propaganda. Most Americans are not for more gun control, and most Americans think the Climate Change Nazis are up to their noses in cocaine or something. Once you read those 2 points, you understand that these 2 professors started with a belief and then found arguments to support their belief. That is the scientific method turned ####-backward.

Fine, attack the messenger, you have nothing of any importance to add, so you have decided to go the time honored right wing route of smearing anybody you guys consider liberal.

[Hangernaid 1]

I did not attack the messenger, I pointed out that this was written as if it were fact when it is a politically biased editorial. Given that two of the main points are false, that Americans are for more background checks and more gun control (false) and that Americans are concerned about Global Warming (false), then how can this article be taken seriously? The US already has background checks in place and if there was support for more gun control, it would have already happened. Same with Globlal Warming legislation. So the whole article is biased and has factual errors (lies), and is not believable.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2569215/Humans-not-blame-global-warming-says-Greenpeace-founder-Patrick-Moore.html#ixzz2xZjTtRiJ

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-face-crisis-over-global-warming-pause-a-923937.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100095506/there-has-been-no-global-warming-since-1998/

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/22/science/la-sci-climate-change-uncertainty-20130923

Edited April 18, 2014 by Hangernaid

[UncleBeer 244]

Fine, attack the messenger, you have nothing of any importance to add, so you have decided to go the time honored right wing route of smearing anybody you guys consider liberal.

Uggh. If you'd read the study, you'd realize it was merely an opinion piece and nothing more. "Science" requires objectivity, and deserves better than this.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I did not attack the messenger, I pointed out that this was written as if it were fact when it is a politically biased editorial. Given that two of the main points are false, that Americans are for more background checks and more gun control (false) and that Americans are concerned about Global Warming (false), then how can this article be taken seriously? The US already has background checks in place and if there was support for more gun control, it would have already happened. Same with Globlal Warming legislation. So the whole article is biased and has factual errors (lies), and is not believable.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2569215/Humans-not-blame-global-warming-says-Greenpeace-founder-Patrick-Moore.html#ixzz2xZjTtRiJ

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-face-crisis-over-global-warming-pause-a-923937.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100095506/there-has-been-no-global-warming-since-1998/

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/22/science/la-sci-climate-change-uncertainty-20130923

I'm pretty sure many Americans are for more gun control: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/gun-control-poll_n_5161905.html

Support for stricter gun laws has leveled off from its peak following 2012's mass shooting at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school, a new HuffPost/YouGov poll shows. Continued gun violence since then, including numerous mass shootings, seems to have had little impact on support for new laws.

Forty-nine percent of Americans now support making gun laws stricter. That's the same as the number who said so in a HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted in December, but below the peak of 60 percent reached in January 2013, a month after the Newtown school massacre. In the new poll, 24 percent said they thought gun laws didn't need to be changed, and 20 percent said they should be made even looser than they already are.

[Peikko 1,575]

I did not attack the messenger, I pointed out that this was written as if it were fact when it is a politically biased editorial. Given that two of the main points are false, that Americans are for more background checks and more gun control (false) and that Americans are concerned about Global Warming (false), then how can this article be taken seriously? The US already has background checks in place and if there was support for more gun control, it would have already happened. Same with Globlal Warming legislation. So the whole article is biased and has factual errors (lies), and is not believable.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2569215/Humans-not-blame-global-warming-says-Greenpeace-founder-Patrick-Moore.html#ixzz2xZjTtRiJ

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-face-crisis-over-global-warming-pause-a-923937.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100095506/there-has-been-no-global-warming-since-1998/

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/22/science/la-sci-climate-change-uncertainty-20130923

The article or the study on which the article is based? Apparently your peer review on this study doesn't yet appear in the credits. Perhaps you could provide some specifics as to why you disagree with the study and what data you used in order to reach your conclusions? I have to say that basing your criticism on the fact that the authors of the study are 'extremely liberal' doesn't really cut any ice at all. It's an opinion of course, but it's not an opinion that holds any actual weight as it stands.

Edited April 18, 2014 by The Truth™

[Hangernaid 1]

Take any premise and you can find supporting data. One of my favorite quotes from 19th-century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." When looking at supporting data, question the source. The Huffngton Post is a politically left leaning source, they report stories that support their position on any issue. A poll taken in Berkley, California or Boulder, COlorado would be VERY different from a poll taken in Odessa, Texas or Knoxville, Tennessee. The problem with the internet is people read stuff on the internet and they believe it. "I read it on the interent so it must be true" Peopl should think for themselves and not believe everything they read on the internet.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Hangernaid

[Peikko 1,575]

Take any premise and you can find supporting data. One of my favorite quotes from 19th-century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." When looking at supporting data, question the source. The Huffngton Post is a politically left leaning source, they report stories that support their position on any issue. A poll taken in Berkley, California or Boulder, COlorado would be VERY different from a poll taken in Odessa, Texas or Knoxville, Tennessee. The problem with the internet is people read stuff on the internet and they believe it. "I read it on the interent so it must be true" Peopl should think for themselves and not believe everything they read on the internet.

The article may well appear in a left leaning media organ, but the study on which the article is based is due to appear in a scientific journal. You are stating lots of personal opinions as is your right, but you haven't actually said anything that substantially challenges the premise in the study or the data used to support the premise. Your opinion is therefore not worth a whole lot as of yet.

Edited April 18, 2014 by The Truth™

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Take any premise and you can find supporting data. One of my favorite quotes from 19th-century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." When looking at supporting data, question the source. The Huffngton Post is a politically left leaning source, they report stories that support their position on any issue. A poll taken in Berkley, California or Boulder, COlorado would be VERY different from a poll taken in Odessa, Texas or Knoxville, Tennessee. The problem with the internet is people read stuff on the internet and they believe it. "I read it on the interent so it must be true" Peopl should think for themselves and not believe everything they read on the internet.

Yup, I remember that line of argument when everything pointed to Obama's re-election in Nov 2012. Bash the polls. I heard the same arguments then; that those polls were all biased in Obama's favor and that we'll understand the fallacy of it all when Romney wins this thing in a landslide. Say, how's President Romney doing these days?

[Sousuke 1,214]

Take any premise and you can find supporting data. One of my favorite quotes from 19th-century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." When looking at supporting data, question the source. The Huffngton Post is a politically left leaning source, they report stories that support their position on any issue. A poll taken in Berkley, California or Boulder, COlorado would be VERY different from a poll taken in Odessa, Texas or Knoxville, Tennessee. The problem with the internet is people read stuff on the internet and they believe it. "I read it on the interent so it must be true" Peopl should think for themselves and not believe everything they read on the internet.

I think the notion of the US and oligarchy is fairly non partisan. Also, at one time 90% of people did want full background checks on all purchases. By definition, that means that people wanted more gun control (at least last spring).

[UncleBeer 244]

Forty-nine percent of Americans now support making gun laws stricter.

And 62% of Americans don't trust government to apply gun laws fairly. That's what you call a 'mandate'.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

And 62% of Americans don't trust government to apply gun laws fairly. That's what you call a 'mandate'.

From your article:

Forty-four percent (44%) believe the United States needs stricter gun control laws, but that’s the lowest support for increased gun control since July 2012, just after the mass shooting in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. Just 33% believe it’s at least somewhat likely that stricter gun control laws would have prevented the mass shooting in Washington, DC, with 15% who say it's Very Likely.

Still a decent number from your mandate.

[UncleBeer 244]

Still a decent number from your mandate.

Did you not read the article?? It says that the majority of Americans don't trust government to implement gun control fairly.

Better?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Did you not read the article?? It says that the majority of Americans don't trust government to implement gun control fairly.

Better?

I also read that 75% of Likely U.S. voters believe a strict background check should be required for anyone to buy a gun in the United States.

Yes, I feel much better now.