So now putting things in bold makes the points more valid?

My point was that you picked a bad question to demonstate bias.  I would guess that the answer to WMDs in Iraq would be similar no matter the bias of the respondent.  Plus, the questions in the study were much more specific.  It wasn't "Has the stimulus saved jobs", it was "most economists who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation saved or created only a few jobs or caused job losses".  To be similar, you woudl have to ask "Were WMD found in Iraq in accordance with the international definition of WMDs" or "Were WMDs found in Iraq as defined by the Bush administration when justifying the war".  The point is that the answer to these two questions are drastically different.  Some would assume you meant the former, some the latter, regardless of bias.

There was also this from the same study, "On other issues most Democrats evidenced misinformation, while this was the case with less than half of Republicans. These were: the belief that it was proven to be true that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending large amounts of foreign money to support Republican candidates (voted Democratic 57%, voted Republican 9%); that Obama has not increased the level of troops in Afghanistan (51% to 39%), and that Democrats in Congress did not mostly vote in favor of TARP (56% to 14%)."

Do you really see bias affecting your answer to: "Most scientists think climate change is not occurring views are divided evenly" or "The bailout of GM and Chrysler occurred under Pres. Obama only (not Bush as well)".

So the claim that this study are bias are coming from people that most likely didn't read the actual study.

the study is obviously bias. Anybody could make a study tailored to get the results they want. Can't the conservatives have one dam news channel. I'm sick and tired of the liberals/ left wing nut jobs constantly going after fox news. You never see any conservatives go after MSNBC are CNN,because nobody really watches there bullshit liberal propaganda. I guess the liberal/left wing nut jobs are really scared of the truth,because the majority of America knows whatever they say makes no sense anyways. That seem's to be there tatic,If you  disagree with me,were going to make fun of you and demonize you and try to distract you from the issues,because the liberals/left wing nut jobs know that they have no legitimate arguments and can't really handle the truth. 

That is the dumbest comment on here.Read about the third Reich and dump the hyperbole

And mediamatters is a liberal outfit why not try to find info from an independent outlet not a liberal mouth piece....  christ  

I've found in my area (don't know about the rest of the US, so I won't speak for them), liberals are a lot more willing to be blatant about their objections to conservativism, whereas conservatives either just don't care or can actually just keep it to themselves.

When you eliminate the 25% of 33% most extreme individuals from either party, you will find that most conservatives come to their political ideals through a logical argument while most progressive individuals come to their political ideals through an emotional argument. What this tends to mean is that a moderate progressive is far more likely to see an opposing political ideal as being reprehensible, and as being indicative of a character flaw. Being that many moderate conservatives have made the mistake of arguing with a progressive in the past (and had to deal with the consequences) they may just "bite their tongue" in social situations to avoid an unnecessary argument.

Do you have any data on that claim or is it just a personal observation? The big difference between Republicans and Democrats comes down to the proper role of the state in relation to citizens. If you really look at most issues, they originate with the problem of government power. The big question is, "What roles can the government perform better than its citizens?" The fundamental ideals of both parties are not arrived at through emotional arguments. It comes about largely because of a different conception of how society functions. In other words, you could say they ground their arguments with different claims. Now on moral issues, emotional arguments are more prevalent, but this is true for both Republicans and Democrats.

It is just a personal observation ...

With that in mind, how many positions are taken by progressive individuals which don't resort to appealing to people's emotions by claiming someone (or a group) is being victimized? Can you name a political position of the left which at its core isn't an emotional argument?

It is just a personal observation ...

With that in mind, how many positions are taken by progressive individuals which don't resort to appealing to people's emotions by claiming someone (or a group) is being victimized? Can you name a political position of the left which at its core isn't an emotional argument?

@Happysquirrel: I think your explanation of the difference between the two is about as spot on as it can get.

@Gameover: In the broad aspect of it, yes, it has to do with how society functions.  But what exactly does that mean other than liberals thinking society functions best if an appeal to emotion is used and conservatives think society functions best if an appeal to logic is made.

You can read my previous response to Happysquirrel, but I do not think liberals think society functions best if an appeal to emotion is made. However, this was not really my main point. Both the Democrats and Republicans are going to ground their arguments with claims about how society functions or should function, and their policies are going to derive from or at least be consistent with these initial claims. These initial claims are not argued for by emotion or logic. These claims are just taken as self-evident truths, and these truths ground their policy stances.

After this point is reached, I do not see anything to make me say one party is more emotional or logical than the other. As I mentioned in my response to Happysquirrel, the fact that an argument is based on discrimination or victimization is not necessarily an emotional argument. It can still be based on a principle. Furthermore, even if someone makes an emotional claim, they can still provide a logical argument to support this claim.