Low Information Voters: 43% of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim

[Correll]

Obama certainly acts like a Secular Muslim.

He doesn't shout "Allah", but his decisions support the spread of Radical Islam.

IMO, he is an atheist. His support of Radical Islam is just his anti-colonialist agenda of reducing American power benefiting our enemies.

 

[Camp]

Carter did arm the Mujahideen.

Because it was obviously in the US's interest to arm those fighting against the Soviet Union, especially soviet forces without striking distance of the GUlf.

I know you didn't call anyone a **********, and because of that I will briefly respond. Yes Carter and later Reagan, and to a greater extent, armed the mujahideen. I don't think a direct link to the cia's efforts and bin laden was ever established, because bin laden and other Saudi's didn't need the cia. Eventually, the Taliban emerged, and they were directly tied to the mujahideen factions tied to the Saudis. And they wiped out the former elements that once were tied to us, and whom we abandoned after the soviets' fall. At least that's my understanding.

Bin Laden, The Afghan Mujahadeen, And The CIA: The Myth That Needs To Die

Back at the time, I couldn't see the logic of Carter arming them, and certainly not Reagan's arming them, selling arms to Iran, giving arms to the contras (and others) and selling cocaine in American cities. The soviets were an evil enemy, but sometimes the enemy you know is preferable to the one you don't yet know.

Have a nice day.

THe Soviets were our enemy, with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at US.

Afghanistan gave US a chance to **** them up, like they did to us in Vietnam, and to weaken them as part of their eventual collapse.

Not having thousands of soviet tanks in the middle of Germany constantly threatening the Free World is a good thing.

Giving arms to the Contras fighting Marxist in our own backyard is almost as much of a no brainer. Except for Carter and the Dems in COngress.

Selling arms to Iran was an attempt to ransom hostages. And as they were used against Saddam's forces, no harm done.

Reagan did not sell cocaine in American cities. That some of the shady people the CIA worked with were drug smugglers does not mean that the CIA was supporting their cocaine shipments to the US.

The rise of Islamic Terrorism is not our fault. This type of behavior was always going be part of the transition to a multipolar world.

And of course, USA had no missiles aimed at USSR, correct?

That whole post is a sterling example of low information. Mostly all talking point nonsense from the first sentence to the last. From "tens of thousands of nuclear warheads" to "Islamic terrorism is not our fault".

USSR stockpiles topped out at about 40,000 Warheads.

If by "low information" you mean, "completely right" then, yes, that's me.

Stockpiled is not the same as "aimed at US". The Soviets had enough pointed at us to destroy us, but that did not require tens of thousands of war heads. Most of the stockpiles were useless because they have shelf lives and their reliability becomes questionable. What counted was the ability to produce new warheads and capable delivery systems. The Soviets had plenty of both and still do. Just not accurate to say they had or have tens of thousands of nukes aimed at us. It is a distortion made to fear monger and mislead.

 

[boedicca]

Obama certainly acts like a Secular Muslim.

He doesn't shout "Allah", but his decisions support the spread of Radical Islam.

IMO, he is an atheist. His support of Radical Islam is just his anti-colonialist agenda of reducing American power benefiting our enemies.

That's why I said SECULAR, bub. He doesn't believe in the "spiritual" foundation, but it is a useful tool to TRANSFORM America.

 

[rightwinger]

Wonder what will be said if its ever found out that Obama is in fact a Muslim and was in fact born in Kenya??

Wouldn't that be interesting and I wonder if the POS would land in jail??

That waskally Obama

Ah no. More like a guy who lied about his birthplace so he could run for POTUS. Oh and he also lied about his religion because he knew no one would ever elect a Muslim.

Somehow I don't think people would be as amused as you are.

Low information Republicans never fail to deliver.....all you have to do is set them up and watch them perform

 

[Claudette]

Wonder what will be said if its ever found out that Obama is in fact a Muslim and was in fact born in Kenya??

Wouldn't that be interesting and I wonder if the POS would land in jail??

That waskally Obama

Ah no. More like a guy who lied about his birthplace so he could run for POTUS. Oh and he also lied about his religion because he knew no one would ever elect a Muslim.

Somehow I don't think people would be as amused as you are.

Low information Republicans never fail to deliver.....all you have to do is set them up and watch them perform

LOL The same can be said of Dem low info voters. Just set them up and watch them perform.

 

[Correll]

I know you didn't call anyone a **********, and because of that I will briefly respond. Yes Carter and later Reagan, and to a greater extent, armed the mujahideen. I don't think a direct link to the cia's efforts and bin laden was ever established, because bin laden and other Saudi's didn't need the cia. Eventually, the Taliban emerged, and they were directly tied to the mujahideen factions tied to the Saudis. And they wiped out the former elements that once were tied to us, and whom we abandoned after the soviets' fall. At least that's my understanding.

Bin Laden, The Afghan Mujahadeen, And The CIA: The Myth That Needs To Die

Back at the time, I couldn't see the logic of Carter arming them, and certainly not Reagan's arming them, selling arms to Iran, giving arms to the contras (and others) and selling cocaine in American cities. The soviets were an evil enemy, but sometimes the enemy you know is preferable to the one you don't yet know.

Have a nice day.

THe Soviets were our enemy, with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at US.

Afghanistan gave US a chance to **** them up, like they did to us in Vietnam, and to weaken them as part of their eventual collapse.

Not having thousands of soviet tanks in the middle of Germany constantly threatening the Free World is a good thing.

Giving arms to the Contras fighting Marxist in our own backyard is almost as much of a no brainer. Except for Carter and the Dems in COngress.

Selling arms to Iran was an attempt to ransom hostages. And as they were used against Saddam's forces, no harm done.

Reagan did not sell cocaine in American cities. That some of the shady people the CIA worked with were drug smugglers does not mean that the CIA was supporting their cocaine shipments to the US.

The rise of Islamic Terrorism is not our fault. This type of behavior was always going be part of the transition to a multipolar world.

And of course, USA had no missiles aimed at USSR, correct?

That whole post is a sterling example of low information. Mostly all talking point nonsense from the first sentence to the last. From "tens of thousands of nuclear warheads" to "Islamic terrorism is not our fault".

USSR stockpiles topped out at about 40,000 Warheads.

If by "low information" you mean, "completely right" then, yes, that's me.

Stockpiled is not the same as "aimed at US". The Soviets had enough pointed at us to destroy us, but that did not require tens of thousands of war heads. Most of the stockpiles were useless because they have shelf lives and their reliability becomes questionable. What counted was the ability to produce new warheads and capable delivery systems. The Soviets had plenty of both and still do. Just not accurate to say they had or have tens of thousands of nukes aimed at us. It is a distortion made to fear monger and mislead.

Mmm, so you point is that they might of only had "THOUSANDS" of warheads aimed at US, and it might have taken them hours or days to target the rest of that 40K warheads at US, and some of them might not have worked so, any "fear" is uncalled for "fear mongering"?

<A-hem> I respectfully disagree. I think fear was a valid response to either situation, even in your low ball scenario.

 

[Correll]

Obama certainly acts like a Secular Muslim.

He doesn't shout "Allah", but his decisions support the spread of Radical Islam.

IMO, he is an atheist. His support of Radical Islam is just his anti-colonialist agenda of reducing American power benefiting our enemies.

That's why I said SECULAR, bub. He doesn't believe in the "spiritual" foundation, but it is a useful tool to TRANSFORM America.

Ah, sorry, multi-tasking.

 

[bendog]

Wow. That in no way answered any of his point(s).

Have you thought about a Clown Avatar? You would fit right in.

Might have to try to use the Race Card more...

I am not responding intellectually enough to the numb nut using pejoratives points like :
"you leftist **********". Just because Obamafuck was born in America does not make him one of us. If you want to take that and make it a racial thing then have at it, you limp-brained puddle of infected **** discharge."

You are a moron you know that right ?

If Carter hadn't armed the terrorists, he'd claim he should have and cited that for support Reagan was right.

Carter did arm the Mujahideen.

Because it was obviously in the US's interest to arm those fighting against the Soviet Union, especially soviet forces without striking distance of the GUlf.

I know you didn't call anyone a **********, and because of that I will briefly respond. Yes Carter and later Reagan, and to a greater extent, armed the mujahideen. I don't think a direct link to the cia's efforts and bin laden was ever established, because bin laden and other Saudi's didn't need the cia. Eventually, the Taliban emerged, and they were directly tied to the mujahideen factions tied to the Saudis. And they wiped out the former elements that once were tied to us, and whom we abandoned after the soviets' fall. At least that's my understanding.

Bin Laden, The Afghan Mujahadeen, And The CIA: The Myth That Needs To Die

Back at the time, I couldn't see the logic of Carter arming them, and certainly not Reagan's arming them, selling arms to Iran, giving arms to the contras (and others) and selling cocaine in American cities. The soviets were an evil enemy, but sometimes the enemy you know is preferable to the one you don't yet know.

Have a nice day.

THe Soviets were our enemy, with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at US.

Afghanistan gave US a chance to **** them up, like they did to us in Vietnam, and to weaken them as part of their eventual collapse.

Not having thousands of soviet tanks in the middle of Germany constantly threatening the Free World is a good thing.

Giving arms to the Contras fighting Marxist in our own backyard is almost as much of a no brainer. Except for Carter and the Dems in COngress.

Selling arms to Iran was an attempt to ransom hostages. And as they were used against Saddam's forces, no harm done.

Reagan did not sell cocaine in American cities. That some of the shady people the CIA worked with were drug smugglers does not mean that the CIA was supporting their cocaine shipments to the US.

The rise of Islamic Terrorism is not our fault. This type of behavior was always going be part of the transition to a multipolar world.

You can post your own historical certainties all you want, but there is no way to refute that destabilizing Afghanistan has not blown back on us, or that the neocons taking the shiaa side in a civil war between they and the sunni has not give a "boost" to ISIS.

 

[Pete7469]

correction.., MULATTO !!

I thought the proper term was mud monkey....

Though it's offensive to equate primates to the moonbat messiah.

 

[Camp]

THe Soviets were our enemy, with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at US.

Afghanistan gave US a chance to **** them up, like they did to us in Vietnam, and to weaken them as part of their eventual collapse.

Not having thousands of soviet tanks in the middle of Germany constantly threatening the Free World is a good thing.

Giving arms to the Contras fighting Marxist in our own backyard is almost as much of a no brainer. Except for Carter and the Dems in COngress.

Selling arms to Iran was an attempt to ransom hostages. And as they were used against Saddam's forces, no harm done.

Reagan did not sell cocaine in American cities. That some of the shady people the CIA worked with were drug smugglers does not mean that the CIA was supporting their cocaine shipments to the US.

The rise of Islamic Terrorism is not our fault. This type of behavior was always going be part of the transition to a multipolar world.

And of course, USA had no missiles aimed at USSR, correct?

That whole post is a sterling example of low information. Mostly all talking point nonsense from the first sentence to the last. From "tens of thousands of nuclear warheads" to "Islamic terrorism is not our fault".

USSR stockpiles topped out at about 40,000 Warheads.

If by "low information" you mean, "completely right" then, yes, that's me.

Stockpiled is not the same as "aimed at US". The Soviets had enough pointed at us to destroy us, but that did not require tens of thousands of war heads. Most of the stockpiles were useless because they have shelf lives and their reliability becomes questionable. What counted was the ability to produce new warheads and capable delivery systems. The Soviets had plenty of both and still do. Just not accurate to say they had or have tens of thousands of nukes aimed at us. It is a distortion made to fear monger and mislead.

Mmm, so you point is that they might of only had "THOUSANDS" of warheads aimed at US, and it might have taken them hours or days to target the rest of that 40K warheads at US, and some of them might not have worked so, any "fear" is uncalled for "fear mongering"?

<A-hem> I respectfully disagree. I think fear was a valid response to either situation, even in your low ball scenario.

My point was that in your first example your number was distorted and showed a lack of understanding of what you were attempting to convey. Your response was to post an irrelevant chart that did not back up your claim. The simple fact was that you spoke with authority about something you were totally wrong about and when it was time to back up your claim you failed. We can go right down your list to show all of your assessments are distorted, taken out of context or simply false. The topic is low information voters. Your post to attempt to prove you where highly informed about a list of topics is instead what I said it was, and example of poorly informed, or low information.

 

[Pete7469]

correction.., MULATTO !!

I thought the proper term was mud monkey....

Though it's offensive to equate primates to the moonbat messiah.

 

[bedowin62]

i swear libs are idiots.

you want to talk about low-information voters? NOBODY keeps themselves willingly ignorant, or low-information as left-wing voters do
'

left-wing nutjobs ranted about Bush's drone strikes; obama has TRIPLED THEM, and CHANGED THE DEFINITION OF "MILITANT" to low-ball the numbers of innocent civilians killed in the strike-zone............ all you hear is crickets about that

left-wing nutjobs try to brag obama made historical deportations; but obama simply changed the DEFINITION of a deportation to include people merely turned away at the border

 

[bendog]

I bet he keeps one of these in the oval office

http://i01.i.aliimg.com/photo/v3/219426531/muslim_black_cotton_prayer_mat_rug_with.jpg

 

[David_42]

These ******* republicans never stop..

 

[bedowin62]

These ******* republicans never stop..

having a meltdown leftard?

 

[Flash]

I think you are a confused Moon Bat.

The Real Party of the Rich: Democrats Have More Top Donors, Millionaires in Congress

The Real Party of the Rich: Democrats Have More Top Donors, Millionaires in Congress

 

[Flash]

i swear libs are idiots.

you want to talk about low-information voters? NOBODY keeps themselves willingly ignorant, or low-information as left-wing voters do
'

left-wing nutjobs ranted about Bush's drone strikes; obama has TRIPLED THEM, and CHANGED THE DEFINITION OF "MILITANT" to low-ball the numbers of innocent civilians killed in the strike-zone............ all you hear is crickets about that

left-wing nutjobs try to brag obama made historical deportations; but obama simply changed the DEFINITION of a deportation to include people merely turned away at the border

Liberals are so low information that they are under the impression that when bureaucrats, elected by special interest groups, take money from people that earned it and give it to people that didn't earn it then the economy will somehow magically prosper.

Then they wonder why we ridicule them for being dumbasses.

 

[Correll]

I am not responding intellectually enough to the numb nut using pejoratives points like :
"you leftist **********". Just because Obamafuck was born in America does not make him one of us. If you want to take that and make it a racial thing then have at it, you limp-brained puddle of infected **** discharge."

You are a moron you know that right ?

If Carter hadn't armed the terrorists, he'd claim he should have and cited that for support Reagan was right.

Carter did arm the Mujahideen.

Because it was obviously in the US's interest to arm those fighting against the Soviet Union, especially soviet forces without striking distance of the GUlf.

I know you didn't call anyone a **********, and because of that I will briefly respond. Yes Carter and later Reagan, and to a greater extent, armed the mujahideen. I don't think a direct link to the cia's efforts and bin laden was ever established, because bin laden and other Saudi's didn't need the cia. Eventually, the Taliban emerged, and they were directly tied to the mujahideen factions tied to the Saudis. And they wiped out the former elements that once were tied to us, and whom we abandoned after the soviets' fall. At least that's my understanding.

Bin Laden, The Afghan Mujahadeen, And The CIA: The Myth That Needs To Die

Back at the time, I couldn't see the logic of Carter arming them, and certainly not Reagan's arming them, selling arms to Iran, giving arms to the contras (and others) and selling cocaine in American cities. The soviets were an evil enemy, but sometimes the enemy you know is preferable to the one you don't yet know.

Have a nice day.

THe Soviets were our enemy, with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at US.

Afghanistan gave US a chance to **** them up, like they did to us in Vietnam, and to weaken them as part of their eventual collapse.

Not having thousands of soviet tanks in the middle of Germany constantly threatening the Free World is a good thing.

Giving arms to the Contras fighting Marxist in our own backyard is almost as much of a no brainer. Except for Carter and the Dems in COngress.

Selling arms to Iran was an attempt to ransom hostages. And as they were used against Saddam's forces, no harm done.

Reagan did not sell cocaine in American cities. That some of the shady people the CIA worked with were drug smugglers does not mean that the CIA was supporting their cocaine shipments to the US.

The rise of Islamic Terrorism is not our fault. This type of behavior was always going be part of the transition to a multipolar world.

You can post your own historical certainties all you want, but there is no way to refute that destabilizing Afghanistan has not blown back on us, or that the neocons taking the shiaa side in a civil war between they and the sunni has not give a "boost" to ISIS.

At what point was Afghanistan stable? When the collapsing Commie government appealed to the Sovs for aid?

When the Sovs betrayed him?

When the Sovs were winning the war against the mujahideen? Was that stability?

 

[Camp]

i swear libs are idiots.

you want to talk about low-information voters? NOBODY keeps themselves willingly ignorant, or low-information as left-wing voters do
'

left-wing nutjobs ranted about Bush's drone strikes; obama has TRIPLED THEM, and CHANGED THE DEFINITION OF "MILITANT" to low-ball the numbers of innocent civilians killed in the strike-zone............ all you hear is crickets about that

left-wing nutjobs try to brag obama made historical deportations; but obama simply changed the DEFINITION of a deportation to include people merely turned away at the border

Liberals are so low information that they are under the impression that when bureaucrats, elected by special interest groups, take money from people that earned it and give it to people that didn't earn it then the economy will somehow magically prosper.

Then they wonder why we ridicule them for being dumbasses.

Funny, you lecture about low information and call people dumbasses (you can't even spell dumb asses correctly) and you think bureaucrats get elected. You don't even know what a bureaucrat is, or the difference between a bureaucrat and and elected official.
Keep lecturing about how the other guy is low information. Continue to show off your superior knowledge and intellect.

 

[HenryBHough]

Silly.

Muslims only admit higher primates - OK, and the occasional goat.....