The Misinformed Among Us Are Obama's Only Hope

[mudwhistle]

Some voters are woefully uninformed and some of them vote for Democrats. Despite what partisans on both sides claim there doesn't seem to be a huge difference in knowledgeability between the parties (Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press)

Republicans and Democrats are equally likely to be represented in the high-knowledge group. But significantly fewer Republicans (26%) than Democrats (31%) fall into the third of the public that knows the least.

The slight edge for Republicans doesn't indicate a causal relationship between party affiliation and knowledge, since Republicanism coordinates with things like college education which also correlate with knowledge.

It's a bit jarring to see the claim

Most of them have forgotten that the reason we can't buy toilet paper is because Obama hasn't passed a budget since he's been in office.

in a post bemoaning the counterfactual beliefs of voters.

Regardless of your biased viewpoint on the intelligence of Republicans compared to Democrats.....the reason I mentioned toilet paper is because currently we aren't able to purchase any until we have a budget......along with replacement parts, air-filters......etc.

Over 400 priority 3 jobs in my shop alone are currently overdue waiting on supply because an unannounced hold has been put on them till further notice. Hopefully the Super-committee will do Obama's job for him and give us some money. The hold went into effect right around the time Obama got the debt-ceiling raised. Many of the high velocity air-handlers on post need pleated air-filters that cost anywhere from $7 to $10 a piece. They've stopped ordering them at the direction of the DOD. One month into the new fiscal year and the money still hasn't been released.

 

[ladyliberal]

Oh, and California has been in the hands of the Democrats for a couple of decades.....so I don't think you can convince me it's swimming with Republicans. Maybe back in the 70s, but not anymore.

Actually this is an attempt to deflect the debate. You can't face the fact that you used a liberal source. So you went to the trouble of putting my post under a microscope to find any flaw no matter the significance.

The Pew Research Center is not a trusted source because of their backing and those they employ. I've been reading some of their work and it's slanted way to the left.

For at least the third time, I never said that California was "swimming with Republicans", "mostly" Republicans or anything of the sort. I said there were "many" Republicans, and that Hewlett was one of them. You can't just assume someone is a non-Republican because they live in California.

Since you now wish to shift the conversation from whether your statements have been factually accurate to the validity of the study I cited, let me say that nothing you have said calls into question the accuracy of the study. I'm also not sure why you seem to think the conclusions of the survey favor the left. As I noted in my post, it finds that Republicans are somewhat more informed than Democrats, and it notes O'Reilly and Limbaugh as personalities with well-informed audiences.

 

[Dragon]

the reason I mentioned toilet paper is because currently we aren't able to purchase any until we have a budget . . . Hopefully the Super-committee will do Obama's job for him and give us some money.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law"

Article I, Section 9.

Since when is the budget the job of the president?

See, this is the kind of thing I mean, Muddy. Usually you don't say anything at all, and when you do say something, it's this sort of thing, completely devoid of any basis in fact. As long as it makes good copy, you don't seem to care.

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh, and California has been in the hands of the Democrats for a couple of decades.....so I don't think you can convince me it's swimming with Republicans. Maybe back in the 70s, but not anymore.

Actually this is an attempt to deflect the debate. You can't face the fact that you used a liberal source. So you went to the trouble of putting my post under a microscope to find any flaw no matter the significance.

The Pew Research Center is not a trusted source because of their backing and those they employ. I've been reading some of their work and it's slanted way to the left.

For at least the third time, I never said that California was "swimming with Republicans", "mostly" Republicans or anything of the sort. I said there were "many" Republicans, and that Hewlett was one of them. You can't just assume someone is a non-Republican because they live in California.

Since you now wish to shift the conversation from whether your statements have been factually accurate to the validity of the study I cited, let me say that nothing you have said calls into question the accuracy of the study. I'm also not sure why you seem to think the conclusions of the survey favor the left. As I noted in my post, it finds that Republicans are somewhat more informed than Democrats, and it notes O'Reilly and Limbaugh as personalities with well-informed audiences.

I'm sorry lady....but I keep seeing former Clinton Administration officials in important positions in the media and in these so-called "Think-Tanks".

A red-flag goes up whenever I spot one.

Not only do they influence the published views but everyone they bring with them permeates these organizations. It's like a quiet takeover that nobody knows about until after it's done. What was once a respectable source of information becomes an unreliable one that's paid to carry the Democrat's water.

And as far as William Hewlett's foundation is concerned I'm a bit leery of anything that is based in SF. My sister lived there and many of my friends live there. It is just about the most liberal town in America.

You go right ahead and keep buying the kind of information these people specialize in....but I recognize it for what it is. Maybe if you learned to question everything, maybe double-check their opinions and compare them with other sources you'll learn to be more cynical of their viewpoints.

 

[Dragon]

For at least the third time, I never said that California was "swimming with Republicans", "mostly" Republicans or anything of the sort. I said there were "many" Republicans, and that Hewlett was one of them. You can't just assume someone is a non-Republican because they live in California.

Since you now wish to shift the conversation from whether your statements have been factually accurate to the validity of the study I cited, let me say that nothing you have said calls into question the accuracy of the study. I'm also not sure why you seem to think the conclusions of the survey favor the left. As I noted in my post, it finds that Republicans are somewhat more informed than Democrats, and it notes O'Reilly and Limbaugh as personalities with well-informed audiences.

I'm sorry lady....but I keep seeing former Clinton Administration officials in important positions in the media and in these so-called "Think-Tanks".

A red-flag goes up whenever I spot one.

Not only do they influence the published views but everyone they bring with them permeates these organizations. It's like a quiet takeover that nobody knows about until after it's done. What was once a respectable source of information becomes an unreliable one that's paid to carry the Democrat's water.

And as far as William Hewlett's foundation is concerned I'm a bit leery of anything that is based in SF. My sister lived there and many of my friends live there. It is just about the most liberal town in America.

You go right ahead and keep buying the kind of information these people specialize in....but I recognize it for what it is. Maybe if you learned to question everything, maybe double-check their opinions and compare them with other sources you'll learn to be more cynical of their viewpoints.

And here we have another complete non-sequitur. Note that the quote in bold above from LadyLiberal is the essential point to which Mudwhistle is supposedly responding here. Note that nothing he said is really in response at all.

Another illustration of what I mean: many words used to say, in effect, nothing. Nothing whatever.

 

[mudwhistle]

the reason I mentioned toilet paper is because currently we aren't able to purchase any until we have a budget . . . Hopefully the Super-committee will do Obama's job for him and give us some money.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law"

Article I, Section 9.

Since when is the budget the job of the president?

See, this is the kind of thing I mean, Muddy. Usually you don't say anything at all, and when you do say something, it's this sort of thing, completely devoid of any basis in fact. As long as it makes good copy, you don't seem to care.

The President is responsible for presenting the Congress his budget. He pencil-whipped one several months ago and it was resoundingly reject by Democrat and Republicans alike.....similar to his stupid Jobs Bill. Nether was expected to pass.

According to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the president is also responsible for preparing the Budget of the United States, although the Congress must approve it [1]. The Office of Management and Budget assists the President with the preparation of the budget. In the past (but no longer), the President was able to impound funds as he saw fit. The power was available to all presidents up to and including Richard Nixon​, and was regarded as a power inherent to the office. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed in response to large scale exercise of the power by President Nixon​. This act also created the Congressional Budget Office as a legislative counterpoint to the Office of Management and Budget. Powers of the President of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dragon]

The President is responsible for presenting the Congress his budget.

As you acknowledged yourself, he has done so. (Your opinion of whether it could reasonably have been expected to pass is irrelevant.) Whose job is it to actually PASS a budget?

 

[Chris]

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.

Eight years later, he left Obama with a shattered economy, a trillion dollar deficit, and two useless wars.

Obama saved the country from another Great Depression, rebuilt GM, reformed healthcare, reformed Wall Street, created 19 straight months of private sector job growth, got Bin Laden, got Gaddafi, and got us out of Iraq.

Obama deserves to be re-elected, my friends.

 

[mudwhistle]

For at least the third time, I never said that California was "swimming with Republicans", "mostly" Republicans or anything of the sort. I said there were "many" Republicans, and that Hewlett was one of them. You can't just assume someone is a non-Republican because they live in California.

Since you now wish to shift the conversation from whether your statements have been factually accurate to the validity of the study I cited, let me say that nothing you have said calls into question the accuracy of the study. I'm also not sure why you seem to think the conclusions of the survey favor the left. As I noted in my post, it finds that Republicans are somewhat more informed than Democrats, and it notes O'Reilly and Limbaugh as personalities with well-informed audiences.

I'm sorry lady....but I keep seeing former Clinton Administration officials in important positions in the media and in these so-called "Think-Tanks".

A red-flag goes up whenever I spot one.

Not only do they influence the published views but everyone they bring with them permeates these organizations. It's like a quiet takeover that nobody knows about until after it's done. What was once a respectable source of information becomes an unreliable one that's paid to carry the Democrat's water.

And as far as William Hewlett's foundation is concerned I'm a bit leery of anything that is based in SF. My sister lived there and many of my friends live there. It is just about the most liberal town in America.

You go right ahead and keep buying the kind of information these people specialize in....but I recognize it for what it is. Maybe if you learned to question everything, maybe double-check their opinions and compare them with other sources you'll learn to be more cynical of their viewpoints.

And here we have another complete non-sequitur. Note that the quote in bold above from LadyLiberal is the essential point to which Mudwhistle is supposedly responding here. Note that nothing he said is really in response at all.

Another illustration of what I mean: many words used to say, in effect, nothing. Nothing whatever.

And all you've been doing is pissing an moaning like a bitch while she has at least presented reasonable questions to my arguments.

 

[mudwhistle]

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.

Eight years later, he left Obama with a shattered economy, a trillion dollar deficit, and two useless wars.

Obama saved the country from another Great Depression, rebuilt GM, reformed healthcare, reformed Wall Street, created 19 straight months of private sector job growth, got Bin Laden, got Gaddafi, and got us out of Iraq.

Obama deserves to be re-elected, my friends.

OMG....Obama saved us.....

I think you keep forgetting all the shit that happened between the time Bush took office and turned it over to Obama.

Stuff like 9/11, Katrina, one disaster after another to include the Democrats winning control of Congress and sending what Bush called "One Protest Bill After Another" to his desk to sign.

 

[Chris]

 

[MeBelle]

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace. <snip>

A nation at peace?

1993 World Trade Center bombing...
1998 U.S. Embassy attacks...
2000 U.S.S Cole bombing...

These three bombings had one thing in common.

 

[Dragon]

And all you've been doing is pissing an moaning like a bitch while she has at least presented reasonable questions to my argument.

You don't have an argument. You have a cloud of verbiage devoid of any cognitive significance. Her reasonable questions were directed to the air; nevertheless, you responded to them with a complete LACK of reason, which was, of course, my point.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yeah. Right.

We're just swimming in jobs.

 

[jillian]

neat-o, super cool, groovy... another obama-derangement thread.

 

[mudwhistle]

And all you've been doing is pissing an moaning like a bitch while she has at least presented reasonable questions to my argument.

You don't have an argument. You have a cloud of verbiage devoid of any cognitive significance. Her reasonable questions were directed to the air; nevertheless, you responded to them with a complete LACK of reason, which was, of course, my point.

Actually she assumes that the source she gave me cannot be bogus.

I have a problem with her source and so do others.

That doesn't cover up the fact you're a whining baby that thinks winning arguments is throwing insults around. She at least presents a challenge.

 

[Chris]

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace. <snip>

A nation at peace?

1993 World Trade Center bombing...
1998 U.S. Embassy attacks...
2000 U.S.S Cole bombing...

These three bombings had one thing in common.

Thanks for proving my point.

None of those were wars costing trillions of dollars.

 

[Dragon]

Actually she assumes that the source she gave me cannot be bogus.

I have a problem with her source and so do others.

That you have a problem with it means nothing. You offered absolutely nothing in the way of any reason to doubt its validity, and have wasted a lot of bandwidth offering that nothing.

That doesn't cover up the fact you're a whining baby that like winning arguments by throwing insults around. She at least presents a challenge.

What argument? You have to actually present one for me, or anyone else, to win one with you. You haven't been doing that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Since when is the budget the job of the president?

It isn’t.

But the OP and others on the right will contrive any nonsense if they believe it to be politically advantageous.

 

[Dragon]

Since when is the budget the job of the president?

It isn’t.

But the OP and others on the right will contrive any nonsense if they believe it to be politically advantageous.

Let's not be completely unfair. I've known conservatives to present valid argument and sound reasoning, or at least arguments that were something more than empty air and blatantly false statements.

It's just that Mudwhistle isn't one of them.