Well, when it seems that a "news" outlet such as Fox is where a great deal of Americans gets their news from and, given the number of people who prop themselves down in front of the TV on a daily basis to get news in general (even if it isn't Fox) then it isn't difficult to make a generalization based on these facts. Now, if 10% of the population watched Fox, 10% listened to NPR, 10% watched CNN, 10% read the NY Times, 10% read the Wall Street Journal, 10% read USA Today, 10% read the BBC, etc such generalizations would be impossible to make. I have no problem making the generalizations I did when it seems that the "norm" is indeed Baaaaad.


Not having read the report yet, I wouldn't have too much difficulty concurring that the reason the majority of economists are registered democrats is that the democratic party economic philosophy is probably better suited for a stable or improved economy. I mean, they ARE the experts in this field, right? I think their own political choices should really be taken seriously.

So again, what you've said is generalizations are OK if you happen to come to the conclusion about those generalizations in a way you think is logical.

I would argue that other people may come up with generalizations having come to conclusions which to them are logical. However, certain ones seem to be not acceptable while others are, depending on the group think about the generalization.

NA's post reminds me that Republicans adoring the myth of small town America still existing are further delusional because it's the policies of the Republican party that are most responsible for its replacement by Corporate America.


Let the Red States have their own nation in the middle. Let them eat Wheat. We'll take the coastlines and be done with it. They can have the name United States of America, but we keep the capital of Washington because, like just about everything else remotely civilized, it's on the coasts.

Then all the morons can relocate to the interior. And all the educated can flee the interior for the coasts. Enough with purple state confusion. Let's just admit we are two nations that cannot abide each other and have done with it. (And then get down to the business of the next hundred years in further sub-dividing each resulting nation into their own two fragments that can't abide each other.)

^^ Are the blue states the Confederates or the Yanks? ;)

I knew you were a Libertarian at heart.

I'm not sure what is in the least bit illogical about a generalization based on information that Fox has a larger viewership than CNN. It's not rocket science to come to the conclusion I did. Like I said, if 10%........I couldn't make the same conclusion at all.

I tend to think there'll be more masturbation (allowed) in the blue states, so I guess we'll be the Yanks.

NA, I'm not concerned with whether what you arrived at is logical or not. I'm merely trying to suggest/point out/whatever that there is a tendency to accept generalizations that you agree with (for whatever reason) and jump on those you disagree with (being General You, but you). Most of the time on the LoT, generalizations about the right are accepted as logical and even self evident, so they go as accepted or unchallanged, such as calling anyone who thing McCain is different than Bush "delusional". Generalizations made about the left, no matter how logical I might think they are, are often/usually/frequently called out as being generalizations and therefore ruled out summarily.

Generalizations are generalizations, no matter how they are arrived at. Some are treated differently than others depending on the point of view and thought of the masses around here. This is all I am saying.

I could be so obtuse with this line......:D

But I'll spare you the aggravation:cheers:

All generalizations are inherently flawed at the level of the individual.