Poll shows Republicans still misinformed

[crimethinker]

Here are the poll results, asking Americans a number of questions, mostly on foreign policy.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~benv/files...party%20ID.pdf

I find Q63 and Q64 most interesting. 63 was "Do you believe that the following statement is true or not true? "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded in 2003."

Iraq had no such weapons, but 14.9% of Democrats compared to 62.9% of Republicans answered true. Independents, of course, were in-between these figures.

Q64 was "Which of the following statements best describes your views on whether Barack Obama was born in the United States or another country?"

He was born in Hawaii, of course, but 74.9% of Democrats agree that he was, compared to 19.1% for Republicans.

Curiously, in Q4, Republicans say they "follow news about world affairs and foreign policy issues" more closely than Democrats. Right... I guess it depends on what your definition of "news" is.

So, thoughts on these findings? Even if you're a Republican yourself, you should admit that this is rather discouraging for your party. Pride combined with misinformation seems rather dangerous to me.

[truthreality]

Here are the poll results, asking Americans a number of questions, mostly on foreign policy.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~benv/files...party%20ID.pdf

I find Q63 and Q64 most interesting. 63 was "Do you believe that the following statement is true or not true? "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded in 2003."

Iraq had no such weapons, but 14.9% of Democrats compared to 62.9% of Republicans answered true. Independents, of course, were in-between these figures.

Q64 was "Which of the following statements best describes your views on whether Barack Obama was born in the United States or another country?"

He was born in Hawaii, of course, but 74.9% of Democrats agree that he was, compared to 19.1% for Republicans.

Curiously, in Q4, Republicans say they "follow news about world affairs and foreign policy issues" more closely than Democrats. Right... I guess it depends on what your definition of "news" is.

So, thoughts on these findings? Even if you're a Republican yourself, you should admit that this is rather discouraging for your party. Pride combined with misinformation seems rather dangerous to me.

I think these are just symptoms that come with the illness of their party.

[Dieval]

Here are the poll results, asking Americans a number of questions, mostly on foreign policy.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~benv/files...party%20ID.pdf

I find Q63 and Q64 most interesting. 63 was "Do you believe that the following statement is true or not true? "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded in 2003."

Iraq had no such weapons, but 14.9% of Democrats compared to 62.9% of Republicans answered true. Independents, of course, were in-between these figures.

Actually, Iraq did have banned WMD's...they didn't have the large stock piles we expected to find though, so saying that "Iraq had no such weapons" is incorrect.

Q64 was "Which of the following statements best describes your views on whether Barack Obama was born in the United States or another country?"

He was born in Hawaii, of course, but 74.9% of Democrats agree that he was, compared to 19.1% for Republicans.

So, what you're really saying is that 25% of Obama's own party don't believe him?? O.o

Curiously, in Q4, Republicans say they "follow news about world affairs and foreign policy issues" more closely than Democrats. Right... I guess it depends on what your definition of "news" is.

It's funny how you'll take some answers at face value and draw conclusions about others...

So, thoughts on these findings? Even if you're a Republican yourself, you should admit that this is rather discouraging for your party. Pride combined with misinformation seems rather dangerous to me.

So, a study done by a liberal school, that appears to try and discredit republicans, should be "discouraging" to us? ROFL Yeah, OK.

Would you be so accepting of a study done by a conservative group??

[truthreality]

Actually, Iraq did have banned WMD's...they didn't have the large stock piles we expected to find though, so saying that "Iraq had no such weapons" is incorrect.

Iraq does not have nuclear weapons, biological weapons or chemical weapons. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Why didn't the United States invade Pakistan. They are more of a threat then Iraq. The invasion if Iraq was driven by oil. WMDs was just were just an excuse. I have a hunch you have no idea what a fucking WMD is.

So, what you're really saying is that 25% of Obama's own party don't believe him?? O.o

80%>>>>>25%.

It's funny how you'll take some answers at face value and draw conclusions about others...

Fox news is not news. Fox news is "news".

So, a study done by a liberal school, that appears to try and discredit republicans, should be "discouraging" to us? ROFL Yeah, OK.

This is a survey. Surveys are conducted in a way to eliminate bias. The facts speak for themselves.

Would you be so accepting of a study done by a conservative group??

I would take their twisted information and compare it with real data to get the real jist.

[Charlatan]

Well, on other matters, take abortion, there are more dividends. Then there is the death penalty and homosexual marriage too. I wonder how they pan out with each parties followers, as there is always a divide on what is right and wrong, and no real answer to it i suppose, whether they are murder or not, or whether it is right or not. Each party has it's own agenda, and they cater for thier people who vote for them expecting to recieve these things in accordance with the campaign.

If you were to take the republicans, they would surely be more knowledgeable on othe things to the dems. If they discuss one side of the argument, then they know a lot more about it. Same with news, where news caters for each polarised point.

The republicans may be less knowledgable than the dems about the war, but that is becuase they supported it and were not listening maybe.

Why is everybody trying to make other people look stupid? These surveys could rather tell the people overseeing them that the people want this or that instead of x y z.

Why is so much money spent on campaign trails? They always offer the same things, and it is a waste of revenue. All that money goes to advertising, and that lines the pockets of the one percent. There should be a law against making campaigns cost too much, as it goes nowhere, and then money dissapears even faster.

[Trojan_Ripper]

So, what you're really saying is that 25% of Obama's own party don't believe him?? O.o

80%>>>>>25%.

I think you fucked him up when you rounded off Dieval. LOL

So, a study done by a liberal school, that appears to try and discredit republicans, should be "discouraging" to us? ROFL Yeah, OK.

This is a survey. Surveys are conducted in a way to eliminate bias.

Don't you see Dieval? It’s a survey….and they are conducted in a way to eliminate bias according to him.
I guess you’ll just need to post a “SURVEY” from a conservative source and it will be fine because “surveys” eliminate bias.

Would you be so accepting of a study done by a conservative group??

I would take their twisted information and compare it with real data

Oops, wait a minute, I take back what I said. I’m sensing some bias here with that “twisted information” “real data” statement he made. LOL

Anyways, good posting Dieval. I would have given you a “like” on your previous post but we don’t have the feature anymore. So I created my own “like” feature I will use on posts that deserve the T_R “like” award. Keep tuned for my upcoming “Dislike" emblem….LOL



T_R post likeee emblem.

[Dieval]

Iraq does not have nuclear weapons, biological weapons or chemical weapons.

You are mistaken...chemical weapons were found in Iraq. Again, not the large stock piles that were expected, but they were found none the less.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Why didn't the United States invade Pakistan. They are more of a threat then Iraq. The invasion if Iraq was driven by oil. WMDs was just were just an excuse. I have a hunch you have no idea what a fucking WMD is.

You'd suggest attacking a country with nuclear weapons? It seems that your judgement is highly questionable.

As far as the war for oil non-sense, your article says it quite clearly:

Mr Greenspan said it was clear to him that Saddam Hussein had wanted to control the Straits of Hormuz and so control Middle East oil shipments through the vital route out of the Gulf. He said that had Saddam been able to do that it would have been "devastating to the west" as the former Iraqi president could have just shut off 5m barrels a day and brought "the industrial world to its knees".

Protecting the worlds life-blood from terrorism is different than stealing it, which is usually what people like you suggest.

80%>>>>>25%.

Not my point.

Fox news is not news. Fox news is "news".

Not my point.

This is a survey. Surveys are conducted in a way to eliminate bias. The facts speak for themselves.

Again, the fact that a survey was done by a liberal college, which appears to paint republicans as uninformed idiots, is a waste of time.

I would take their twisted information and compare it with real data to get the real jist.

So, conservative groups produce "twisted information" while liberal colleges produce accurate information? No bias there...

[Dieval]

I think you fucked him up when you rounded off Dieval. LOL






Don't you see Dieval? It’s a survey….and they are conducted in a way to eliminate bias according to him.
I guess you’ll just need to post a “SURVEY” from a conservative source and it will be fine because “surveys” eliminate bias.





Oops, wait a minute, I take back what I said. I’m sensing some bias here with that “twisted information” “real data” statement he made. LOL

Anyways, good posting Dieval. I would have given you a “like” on your previous post but we don’t have the feature anymore. So I created my own “like” feature I will use on posts that deserve the T_R “like” award. Keep tuned for my upcoming “Dislike" emblem….LOL



T_R post likeee emblem.

Hahaha I like the your new "like" system better than the old one!

[truthreality]

I think you fucked him up when you rounded off Dieval. LOL






Don't you see Dieval? It’s a survey….and they are conducted in a way to eliminate bias according to him.
I guess you’ll just need to post a “SURVEY” from a conservative source and it will be fine because “surveys” eliminate bias.





Oops, wait a minute, I take back what I said. I’m sensing some bias here with that “twisted information” “real data” statement he made. LOL

Anyways, good posting Dieval. I would have given you a “like” on your previous post but we don’t have the feature anymore. So I created my own “like” feature I will use on posts that deserve the T_R “like” award. Keep tuned for my upcoming “Dislike" emblem….LOL



T_R post likeee emblem.

Uh-oh. Someone else is showing a little bias here as well:

So, a study done by a liberal school, that appears to try and discredit republicans, should be "discouraging" to us? ROFL Yeah, OK.

Most of your post is opinion matched against opinion. Notice how Dievel expressed skepticism against surveys done by liberal sources. I expressed the same skepticism against conservative sources. Really we are both equal here.

I love how you had absolutely no answer to the post I made about the WMDs in Iraq, I mean the lack of WMDs in Iraq, which was really the main post. Thanks providing absolutely nothing with substance. Good job.

[truthreality]

Hahaha I like the your new "like" system better than the old one!

Funny. You haven't proven shit. Nothing you said deserved a like button. I suppose sharing the same agenda with someone else is reason enough to hit the like button even if nothing they said demonstrated anything substantial.

[Trojan_Ripper]

I love how you had absolutely no answer to the post I made about the WMDs in Iraq, I mean the lack of WMDs in Iraq, which was really the main post. Thanks providing absolutely nothing with substance. Good job.

Dude, why should someone have to answer something that is already known?

Look at your own post mentioning "chemical weapons" which are weapons of mass destruction. WMDs used by Saadam to kill thousands of his own people. Look at the pictures of dead children who were poisoned like a fucking bug and come back and say "they didn't have WMDs".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

There, I provided you with some substance. If you have the gut's look up more about Sadaam and the horrible shit he did.

[Senor Hoint]

Dude, why should someone have to answer something that is already known?

Look at your own post mentioning "chemical weapons" which are weapons of mass destruction. WMDs used by Saadam to kill thousands of his own people. Look at the pictures of dead children who were poisoned like a fucking bug and come back and say "they didn't have WMDs".

There, I provided you with some substance.

Oh, you mean the chemical weapons which were sold to Saddam by the Reagan administration? Also, don't forget that the rationale we used to invade was not "they might have chemical/biological weapons." We KNEW they had those, by virtue of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld was personally involved in selling them to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. The rationale offered was that Iraq had nuclear weapons, and was capable of detonating them over US cities. Both of these things were later proven untrue.

There are serious problems, to say the least, with painting Iraq as a humanitarian intervention. For one thing when Baghdad was siezed units were diverted to protect the oil ministry while anarchy descended on most of the rest of the capital, the part where actual people actually lived. For another, the US is actively allied with many governments which are at least as brutal as Saddam Hussein's government was. Third, we knew Saddam Hussein was murdering his own people by the thousands, but we didn't care because he was also fighting the Iranians, who had recently deposed their CIA-installed Shah in favor of the familiar Islamic Republic. It was only when George W. Bush decided he had to prove he was as good as his daddy (which I think is probably more plausible than the simplistic "we invaded for oil" narrative) that we decided Iraq was part of the "axis of evil," right alongside Iran, the country we propped Saddam up to fight against.