Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Liberal Science

Donk Science- For the Birds


A new study out of Yale University confirms what argumentative liberals have long-known: Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder. In essence, schooling conservatives makes them more stupid. From the Washington Post article on the study, which came out yesterday:

Wow, a Yale study no less.  Horry Clap! I'm going to try and mend my ways.

Look, read the Post article and come to your own conclusion.  The "scientists" involved,  as the Post points out, are all Democrats. Here's an example of their work.

A similar "backfire effect" also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.

Unless I'm misreading, they infer that if, even after I'm shown  (as I have been)  a study by a prominent  economist showing Reagan tax cuts had no effect on revenue, and I continue to say, after all that, "Why sir, I do believe you're quite daft"(as I do), then that makes me a recalcitrant Neanderthal. Right?

Blow me.

A bit of irony here. While Sweeny lectures us about our  inability to recognize the truth of things, the Huff&Puff header gasps that Karl Rove types are stopping the Troopergate investigation.  The words I reach for are still "stuck on stupid."  (Gateway boy has a nice update on the Trooper farce.)



6 comments:

Anonymous said...

It gets even sillier when people find out why the Dems say she had him removed, the normal reaction by any sane person is something like: "He refused to fire a loon who threatened to shoot her family members? Hell, I'd pull strings to remove such a moron myself, if I had any to pull."

Even if they do prove that she did it for personal reasons, no one in their right mind would question these reasons.

The dems are gonna tank harder than Dukakis this year ...

AnnoyedOne said...

Rodger, who you gonna believe? Your lyin' eyes or Dhimmocraps?

Oh.... nevermind ;-)

Anonymous said...

Someone should tell Arthur Laffer about this.

Casca

Rodger the Real King of France said...

Laffer made Liberal heads explode the same way Cheney does now. Kinda like aborigines who see their first airplane.

Anonymous said...

because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals

Oh really. Conservatives have more "rigid views" than liberals. Says who?

Teddy Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, and Joseph Stalin don't/didn't have "rigid views"?

It sounds to me like Ol' Shankar Vedantam is trying a out a little of his own "political misinformation" by feeding into people's preexisting views.

You just can't trust these bastards.

Anonymous said...

I recently received an email forwarded to me by a liberal friend of mine. It purported to show various "lies" by Sarah Palin during her convention speech and giving the "facts". I read it over and wrote him back:

"Is this a joke? Did you even read this? Even if I accept your 'facts' as such, not one of them disproves anything Sarah said." All his "facts" did was introduce irrelevancies. For example: Sarah: "I sent the cash back to DC for the Bridge to Nowhere." Facts: "She lobbied for it, then sent the money back to DC." Therefore she lied? My friend thinks so. They were all like that.

So tell me again, who are the ones who won't be persuaded by facts? Who are the ones who can't be reasoned with?
GrinfilledCelt

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.