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

[rightwinger]

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

The difference between rich Democrats and rich Republicans is that rich Democrats fight to raise their own taxes
Rich Republicans fight to cut benefits to the poor

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

LOL

LWNJ Clown Avatar Posse

 

[Correll]

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.

That chart gave the number of warheads the soviets had, 40k. Those that were not constantly aimed at the US on ICBMs, or sitting in bomber payloads, were certainly available and meant for use against US in event of hostilities.

I was not distorting. YOu are quibbling.

#2 Afghanistan was certainly a chance to hurt them like they did US in Vietnam and it certainly contributed to their collapse.

 

[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

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.

most people understood that people who WERE elected place THEIR bureaucrats in positions to influence and carry out policies. Beyond that all you have is to correct somebody's spelling?

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[Camp]

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.

That chart gave the number of warheads the soviets had, 40k. Those that were not constantly aimed at the US on ICBMs, or sitting in bomber payloads, were certainly available and meant for use against US in event of hostilities.

I was not distorting. YOu are quibbling.

#2 Afghanistan was certainly a chance to hurt them like they did US in Vietnam and it certainly contributed to their collapse.

Your statement about warheads aimed at the US was wrong and misinformed. You are just guessing at the numbers available to the Soviets for attack on the US. Just making stuff up. You don't know how many ICBM's they had or have. You do not know how many launch platforms they had or have. You are beating a dead horse that couldn't run in the first place.

Claiming Afghanistan contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union in more low information nonsense unless you can explain how leaving Afghanistan in 1988-89 caused the USSR to dissolve in 1991. Go ahead and try to explain how the empire was brought down because of a small war that cost them 15,000 soldiers.

 

[Correll]

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.

That chart gave the number of warheads the soviets had, 40k. Those that were not constantly aimed at the US on ICBMs, or sitting in bomber payloads, were certainly available and meant for use against US in event of hostilities.

I was not distorting. YOu are quibbling.

#2 Afghanistan was certainly a chance to hurt them like they did US in Vietnam and it certainly contributed to their collapse.

Your statement about warheads aimed at the US was wrong and misinformed. You are just guessing at the numbers available to the Soviets for attack on the US. Just making stuff up. You don't know how many ICBM's they had or have. You do not know how many launch platforms they had or have. You are beating a dead horse that couldn't run in the first place.

Claiming Afghanistan contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union in more low information nonsense unless you can explain how leaving Afghanistan in 1988-89 caused the USSR to dissolve in 1991. Go ahead and try to explain how the empire was brought down because of a small war that cost them 15,000 soldiers.

1. It was a ball park number based on memory and it was correct. YOu might not have been afraid, because "only" 10k nuclear warheads were on ICBMs that could reach us in under an hour, but everyone else was.

2. Really? Ok. Russia has a history of changing regimes after lost wars undermine confidence. The military and budget strains hit during a period when the Sovs were already struggling and were trying to reform.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

Afghanistan wasn't exactly the beacon of stability before we decided to hunt down the bearded sociopaths that declared war on us. You can just as easily claim there was blow back after we failed to fill the vacuum after the soviets left, or even call WW2 blow back from the asinine globalism after WW1.

We can either stay engaged in world affairs as a force of good, or slink back inside our borders and let despotic regimes flourish.

To be honest I'm leaning toward the latter thanks to the ingratitude of the rest of the world. Especially since most of the problems in the world stem from the euroweenie colonialism of the last 400 years. To have those douchebags undermining our efforts is insulting.

 

[bendog]

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.

Afghanistan wasn't exactly the beacon of stability before we decided to hunt down the bearded sociopaths that declared war on us. You can just as easily claim there was blow back after we failed to fill the vacuum after the soviets left, or even call WW2 blow back from the asinine globalism after WW1.

We can either stay engaged in world affairs as a force of good, or slink back inside our borders and let despotic regimes flourish.

To be honest I'm leaning toward the latter thanks to the ingratitude of the rest of the world. Especially since most of the problems in the world stem from the euroweenie colonialism of the last 400 years. To have those douchebags undermining our efforts is insulting.[/QUOTE
.

Afghan has never been stable. That was the nexis of my dislike of what Carter and Reagan did in the first place. That, and my belief that the Soviets in the 1980s were less a threat to the US and global stability than fundamentalist muslims, both shiaa and sunni. I don't think we can go back to isolationism, but arming countries that have hundreds of years of being little more than the 8th century Caliphate and choosing sides in civil wars is .... nuts

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The poll also reflects that 29% of ALL polled think Obama is Muslim.

-Geaux

-------------
From the OP

"Overall, 29% of Americans say they think the President is a Muslim, including 43% of Republicans."

Lets see?

43% of Republicans believe he is Muslim, half the country is Republican. That means 21% of the 29% are Republicans

Talk about low information voters

Let's examine your post.

21% of the 29% are Republicans.

Congratulations dumb shit, you just wrote that 71% of the people polled who think Obama is a Muslim are NOT Republicans.

 

[Camp]

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.

That chart gave the number of warheads the soviets had, 40k. Those that were not constantly aimed at the US on ICBMs, or sitting in bomber payloads, were certainly available and meant for use against US in event of hostilities.

I was not distorting. YOu are quibbling.

#2 Afghanistan was certainly a chance to hurt them like they did US in Vietnam and it certainly contributed to their collapse.

Your statement about warheads aimed at the US was wrong and misinformed. You are just guessing at the numbers available to the Soviets for attack on the US. Just making stuff up. You don't know how many ICBM's they had or have. You do not know how many launch platforms they had or have. You are beating a dead horse that couldn't run in the first place.

Claiming Afghanistan contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union in more low information nonsense unless you can explain how leaving Afghanistan in 1988-89 caused the USSR to dissolve in 1991. Go ahead and try to explain how the empire was brought down because of a small war that cost them 15,000 soldiers.

1. It was a ball park number based on memory and it was correct. YOu might not have been afraid, because "only" 10k nuclear warheads were on ICBMs that could reach us in under an hour, but everyone else was.

2. Really? Ok. Russia has a history of changing regimes after lost wars undermine confidence. The military and budget strains hit during a period when the Sovs were already struggling and were trying to reform.

You are still just guessing. I have stated they had enough to do the job, but you insist on pretending to know what you are talking about. The number was nowhere near even 10k. Do you even know how to get to a reasonable estimate? You are just confirming your low information status. Why wouldn't you have taken a few minutes to research to topic and come back with a solid number and a reliable source? Plus you refuse to admit there is a difference between a stockpile figure and a actively ready and loaded figure.

You little synopsis about why the USSR dissolved is laughable. That is how you explain your contention of how the Afghan war brought down the USSR? Doesn't seem real academic and scholarly. There were a lot of reasons for the collapse. If you want to include the war in Afghanistan, go ahead, put it on the list, but somewhere at the bottom.

 

[David_42]

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

LOL

LWNJ Clown Avatar Posse

Hey, the avatars are doing what they're supposed to do, drive you rwnjs nuts.

 

[Correll]

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.

That chart gave the number of warheads the soviets had, 40k. Those that were not constantly aimed at the US on ICBMs, or sitting in bomber payloads, were certainly available and meant for use against US in event of hostilities.

I was not distorting. YOu are quibbling.

#2 Afghanistan was certainly a chance to hurt them like they did US in Vietnam and it certainly contributed to their collapse.

Your statement about warheads aimed at the US was wrong and misinformed. You are just guessing at the numbers available to the Soviets for attack on the US. Just making stuff up. You don't know how many ICBM's they had or have. You do not know how many launch platforms they had or have. You are beating a dead horse that couldn't run in the first place.

Claiming Afghanistan contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union in more low information nonsense unless you can explain how leaving Afghanistan in 1988-89 caused the USSR to dissolve in 1991. Go ahead and try to explain how the empire was brought down because of a small war that cost them 15,000 soldiers.

1. It was a ball park number based on memory and it was correct. YOu might not have been afraid, because "only" 10k nuclear warheads were on ICBMs that could reach us in under an hour, but everyone else was.

2. Really? Ok. Russia has a history of changing regimes after lost wars undermine confidence. The military and budget strains hit during a period when the Sovs were already struggling and were trying to reform.

You are still just guessing. I have stated they had enough to do the job, but you insist on pretending to know what you are talking about. The number was nowhere near even 10k. Do you even know how to get to a reasonable estimate? You are just confirming your low information status. Why wouldn't you have taken a few minutes to research to topic and come back with a solid number and a reliable source? Plus you refuse to admit there is a difference between a stockpile figure and a actively ready and loaded figure.

You little synopsis about why the USSR dissolved is laughable. That is how you explain your contention of how the Afghan war brought down the USSR? Doesn't seem real academic and scholarly. There were a lot of reasons for the collapse. If you want to include the war in Afghanistan, go ahead, put it on the list, but somewhere at the bottom.

1. I proved links to show a 40k stockpile of nuclear warheads. I didn't need to do research because I remembered the scale of the problem FROM the Cold War. Yes, there is a difference between a stockpile figure and ready and loaded. The difference is measured in hours or maybe, just maybe days. To me, that is not much of a difference.

2. Nice attempt to move the goal post there. I did not say that Afghanistan brought down the USSR. I said it contributed. And it obviously did.

 

[Pete7469]

Afghan has never been stable. That was the nexis of my dislike of what Carter and Reagan did in the first place. That, and my belief that the Soviets in the 1980s were less a threat to the US and global stability than fundamentalist muslims, both shiaa and sunni. I don't think we can go back to isolationism, but arming countries that have hundreds of years of being little more than the 8th century Caliphate and choosing sides in civil wars is .... nuts

AS far as sending weapons to turd world hell holes I would agree, however someone will always do so. The soviets did so all over africa and south america without regard to the results. Look at the regimes that have been created thanks to soviet influence. They were the greatest challenge to global stability EVER, and the effects are still being felt.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Obama is a Christian like unemployment is 5.4 percent.

 

[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.

Ah, sorry, multi-tasking.

No worries. Unlike some, I realize that many posters (the clown posse excepted) actually have real lives outside of USMB.

 

[rightwinger]

The poll also reflects that 29% of ALL polled think Obama is Muslim.

-Geaux

-------------
From the OP

"Overall, 29% of Americans say they think the President is a Muslim, including 43% of Republicans."

Lets see?

43% of Republicans believe he is Muslim, half the country is Republican. That means 21% of the 29% are Republicans

Talk about low information voters

Let's examine your post.

21% of the 29% are Republicans.

Congratulations dumb shit, you just wrote that 71% of the people polled who think Obama is a Muslim are NOT Republicans.

Check your math skills. Try a calculator

 

[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.

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.

Bureaucrat. You mean like Bernie Sanders that has been in the ******* government his entire adult life? Joe Biden that has never worked a day in his life except being a government bureaucrat? How about Bill Clinton who was in government his entire life? It doesn't make any difference if you are elected or get appointed to the job the shit is the same.

I think it is apparent that you are the one that is confused.

You Moon Bats are confused about a great many things.

 

[Freewill]

Makes one wonder what the other 57 are thinking.

 

[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.

Bureaucrat. You mean like Bernie Sanders that has been in the ******* government his entire adult life? Joe Biden that has never worked a day in his life except being a government bureaucrat? How about Bill Clinton who was in government his entire life? It doesn't make any difference if you are elected or get appointed to the job the shit is the same.

I think it is apparent that you are the one that is confused.

You Moon Bats are confused about a great many things.

I was confused. I use dictionary definitions. I forgot I was dealing with one of you low information types that makes up definitions as they go. Graduates of the University of Babel Tower.
What was this thread about?

 

[Wildman]

EXACTLY what has President Obama done that you are against?

waste O2 for one thing.