Fox Viewers Are Dull/Borderline Mentally Deficient

[chang50]

The viewers.

Even those who do not agree with the right wing bias?

[Symmetry]

The nation????

some 58+ million people were pro-Romney. It seems natural that Pro-Romney people would enjoy a pro-Romney anything rather than an anti-Romney anything

And you are wrong. The entire channel did not go pro-Romney. There were a couple Ron Paul people, as well as many others who did nothing more than challenge the constant streams of bullshit from Washington D.C.

Huh, fair enough, I guess some people went with Ron Paul, a few weeks before he retired, the shattered broken Republican racist that he was.

I don't see that as a redeeming feature of the channel.

Honestly, I am not that qualified to speak about Fox news, or if I am, it's about as much as most Fox-haters, being that I don't watch FOX per say, but I see FOX tidbits on websites and John Stewart/Colbert/every show on MSNBC.

I♥John Stossel, but I don't pay for the premium cable package, so I have to try to follow him on the internet. Judge Nepalitino was also a class act. Imus in the morning gets a lot of great guests, and Glenn Beck changed the game thru FOX.

What specifically do you hate most about FOX?

Kind of a loaded question there Scotty, what makes you think that legitimate criticism of Fox equals hate? You've taken a big step here Scott, perhaps you can walk that question back a bit. I won't ask for an apology, just a walk back. Fair?

[Phatscotty]

well, i didn't mean hate-hate, I will ask what you dislike most

[Symmetry]

well, i didn't mean hate-hate, I will ask what you dislike most

Thanks for the walk-back. You did get a bit crazy on that one. Pretty nutso to be fair, so are you sure that this is what you want to ask?

[Phatscotty]

well, i didn't mean hate-hate, I will ask what you dislike most

Thanks for the walk-back. You did get a bit crazy on that one. Pretty nutso to be fair, so are you sure that this is what you want to ask?

oh gawd. I took you off foe for like 15 seconds, and we are already here again huh?

[Symmetry]

well, i didn't mean hate-hate, I will ask what you dislike most

Thanks for the walk-back. You did get a bit crazy on that one. Pretty nutso to be fair, so are you sure that this is what you want to ask?

oh gawd. I took you off foe for like 15 seconds, and we are already here again huh?

I really appreciate your updates on my position on your foe list, It's very important to me. Very important.

I'm putting it on my whiteboard.

[jonesthecurl]

well, i didn't mean hate-hate, I will ask what you dislike most

Thanks for the walk-back. You did get a bit crazy on that one. Pretty nutso to be fair, so are you sure that this is what you want to ask?

oh gawd. I took you off foe for like 15 seconds, and we are already here again huh?

I really appreciate your updates on my position on your foe list, It's very important to me. Very important.

I'm putting it on my whiteboard.

Racist.

[Phatscotty]

[Symmetry]

Intriguing.

If I were smarter, would i be able to see it?

[Timminz]

If Fox News was available where I live, I would probably start watching TV again.

[notyou2]

The viewers.

Even those who do not agree with the right wing bias?

Very valid question. My response to PS' question was tongue in cheek. Perhaps I should have stated "The supporters/believers".

[john9blue]

Hey john, why are you trying o hard to to criticise fault with these statistics, while sweeping criticisms of Nighstrike's 168 stat in the other thread. Probably because you're so objective and neutral as always.

firstly, because the sources for NS's graph actually existed. the "source" for this study does not exist.

secondly, because the math itself is highly improbable. only about 10% of the population is below 80 IQ assuming an SD of 15. yet 25% of the population watches fox news:

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+pe ... =firefox-a

so it's basically impossible for that statistic to be true, accounting for the extremely small margin of error due to the large sample size (thousands of people). whoever fabricated this study (and whoever believes it) does not have a basic knowledge of statistics.

thirdly, read the article... maybe i've spent too much of my life reading pseudo-intellectual liberal tripe, but i know bullshit when i see it, because unlike most of you, i can think critically about what i'm told, and not just agree with it because it supports my preconceived notions.

[notyou2]

Hey john, why are you trying o hard to to criticise fault with these statistics, while sweeping criticisms of Nighstrike's 168 stat in the other thread. Probably because you're so objective and neutral as always.

firstly, because the sources for NS's graph actually existed. the "source" for this study does not exist.

secondly, because the math itself is highly improbable. only about 10% of the population is below 80 IQ assuming an SD of 15. yet 25% of the population watches fox news:

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+pe ... =firefox-a

so it's basically impossible for that statistic to be true, accounting for the small margin of error due to the large sample size (thousands of people). whoever fabricated this study (and whoever believes it) does not have a basic knowledge of statistics.

thirdly, read the article... maybe i've spent too much of my life reading pseudo-intellectual liberal tripe, but i know bullshit when i see it, because unlike most of you, i can think critically about what i'm told, and not just agree with it because it supports my preconceived notions.

Oooohhhh......how to insult the unwashed masses. Good one.

[Symmetry]

Hey john, why are you trying o hard to to criticise fault with these statistics, while sweeping criticisms of Nighstrike's 168 stat in the other thread. Probably because you're so objective and neutral as always.

firstly, because the sources for NS's graph actually existed. the "source" for this study does not exist.

secondly, because the math itself is highly improbable. only about 10% of the population is below 80 IQ assuming an SD of 15. yet 25% of the population watches fox news:

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+pe ... =firefox-a

so it's basically impossible for that statistic to be true, accounting for the extremely small margin of error due to the large sample size (thousands of people). whoever fabricated this study (and whoever believes it) does not have a basic knowledge of statistics.

thirdly, read the article... maybe i've spent too much of my life reading pseudo-intellectual liberal tripe, but i know bullshit when i see it, because unlike most of you, i can think critically about what i'm told, and not just agree with it because it supports my preconceived notions.

Hmm, US population is 315 million, Fox news peak viewership number is 11.5 million, and averages around 3.7 million, with a daily average of 1.66 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_C ... _reception

I hope you can recognise the BS in the statement "25% of the population watches fox news". Around 1% would be more accurate.

[karel]

fox news should be shut down

[pimpdave]

Fox News really is horrible, and this forum is Exhibit A.

[Phatscotty]

More Fox haters. Beacons of free speech, champions of tolerance, promoters of diversity, and preachers of non-violence...

Fox News contributor punched in face at pro-union protests in Michigan

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12 ... -michigan/

Violent Democrats threaten more violence on the House floor. Promises "there will be blood!"



Maybe rich people should adopt Democrat tactics and union tactics? It seems the unions and the Democrats of today are just as out of control as the robber barons of the late 19th century

[Timminz]

No one hates Fox. We just feel sorry for the borderline mentally deficient people who think they're getting real news from it.

[Phatscotty]

No one hates Fox. We just feel sorry for the borderline mentally deficient people who think they're getting real news from it.

Same pity for Daily Show with NY Times/MSNBC/John Stewart/Colbert Nation viewers?

[pimpdave]

hahaha false equivalency. Dumb dumb dumb

[Phatscotty]

hahaha false equivalency. Dumb dumb dumb

I was just asking his opinion...

[Timminz]

No one hates Fox. We just feel sorry for the borderline mentally deficient people who think they're getting real news from it.

Same pity for Daily Show with NY Times/MSNBC/John Stewart/Colbert Nation viewers?

I don't know much about the NY Times or MSNBC, but I could understand we people with an IQ of 80 might not enjoy Stewart or Colbert.

Anyway, to answer your question: I'll feel the same pity for viewers of those networks/shows, when I see studies showing that they have an average IQ of 80.

Poor dullards... they can't help being nearly-retarded.

[Phatscotty]

No one hates Fox. We just feel sorry for the borderline mentally deficient people who think they're getting real news from it.

Same pity for Daily Show with NY Times/MSNBC/John Stewart/Colbert Nation viewers?

I don't know much about the NY Times or MSNBC, but I could understand we people with an IQ of 80 might not enjoy Stewart or Colbert.

Anyway, to answer your question: I'll feel the same pity for viewers of those networks/shows, when I see studies showing that they have an average IQ of 80.

Poor dullards... they can't help being nearly-retarded.

I don't watch FOX because I am too smart

[DoomYoshi]

What is wrong with viewing fox? Last summer I was north of Eliot Lake and a fox stopped in the middle of the road. We had already slowed to take pictures of the lakes around us, and the decided to view and photograph the fox as well. Does this make me a dullard? How about a mallard?

[Phatscotty]

Attacking the viewers of the top rated cable news stations achieves nothing except for revealing your own fears and weaknesses.