Econ 101

[chuck]

Well by the summation of the survey in the op, liberal bias has contributed to economic misfortune.

The author definitely points in that direction, but only states that "that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened" and goes on to state that that fact may be responsible for our economic troubles. He relies on the reader to associate that statement with the findings presented in the body of his piece.

The liberals are supposed to hold the majority sway over education as well so... maby thats why education standards and practices are so fudged up.

That is my belief. From the results of this survey, it is easy to surmise that the educational system is teaching doctrine instead of fact.

Though imho one should avoid a blame it all on any one faction kind of mentality.

I hate absolutes and can't see placing all the blame anywhere. I do place a lot of the blame on the liberal educational system and I've seen nothing logical that better explains why much of the populace support positions that are detrimental to our economy.

I didn't see a jibe in Tantrics post myself,

I read the word "cute" in the context he used it as derisive. If I misinterpreted his intent, I owe him an apology.

he just pointed out that the sophism used in politics is rampant in both camps is all and that for things to change for the better it would be really benifical for those kinds of tactics to be put aside.

He equated the report with claims of similar but opposing points of view but has yet back up his claim or provide an example. Regardless, pointing to a flaw elsewhere is not a valid way to address a flaw that is being addressed. I agree that unsupported derisive comments is not a beneficial tactic and should be put aside. It would indeed be beneficial that, if there is an issue with the survey and/or the article that describes it, there will be an honest critique of it and not just a "cute" dismissal.