Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush

[SOS2008]

Since this is an umbrella topic to several threads, Bush NOT Honest & Trustworthy/Republican Lies, most notably NY Times discloses secret Executive Order: NSA is spying domestically, and most recently in regard to the filibuster:

In other words, the public don't know what they're talking about. They're delibertaly turning a blind eye to the truth. You few intellegent people, you elite group, you alone understand what is really going on. Since the people are to stupid to be trusted I guess we should abandon democracy: the majority can't possibly understand enough to run a country. No, we're all just dumb, ignorant idiots. We should let you guys do whatever you want since we obviously don't have the mental capabilities you do.

Yes, the public doesn't know and is too stupid, and should listen to those damn know-it-all intellectuals instead of questionable sources of information...

This a great commentary by Roberts (Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions), which was just posted today elsewhere, but once again, very appropriate to ongoing discussions (including the disservice of FOX News, Christian radio, etc. that dominates American media these days):

Polls Show Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush

By Paul Craig Roberts

01/29/06 "ICH" -- -- Two recent polls, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll and a New York Times/CBS News poll, indicate why Bush is getting away with impeachable offenses. Half of the US population is incapable of acquiring, processing and understanding information.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11696.htm

A must read.

 

[edward]

People not being able to understand information is compounded by all of the administrations "repeated danger slogans". In essence it is just plain brain washing.

For instance I have a sister in law who still insists that Iraq was behind 9/11. She is a retired school teacher , so I would not believe that she could be that dumb.
She is a very right wing fundamentalist Christian whitch explains a lot.

Between tricking the dumb, encouraging the religious radicals, and just plain high visibility PR to brain wash the general public with repeated danger phrases, the administration is somehow pulling off the biggest scam in American history.

The administrations method has been to use an ultimate divide and conquer technique, all wrapped around carefully worded frequently repeated danger messages. If you notice each speach or White house press release has statements for specific target audiences. Some time all audiences are covered but mostly in personal appearances the audiences will all be of one mind set.

Those mind sets being:
Hawks: who are told, war war war defend defend defend.

Fiscal conservatives: who are told, the economy is wonderful, and growing.

The wealthy: who are told, more tax breaks to come.

The religious right: who are told: no abortions and Bible prophesies will be fulfilled.

Dumb and Dumber: who are told, the bad guys are going to getch getch getcha.

Each of those audience mind sets then further spread the words among themselves. And we end up with people who still believe that Iraq was behind 9/11.

 

[loseyourname]

The public being stupid doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a reason why a president would be able to commit impeachable offenses without being impeached, since it isn't up to the public to impeach a president. It's up to the Senate.

 

[edward]

The public being stupid doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a reason why a president would be able to commit impeachable offenses without being impeached, since it isn't up to the public to impeach a president. It's up to the Senate.

A republican controlled senate isn't about to impeach a rupublican president.

 

[russ_watters]

A republican controlled senate isn't about to impeach a rupublican president.

Correct. So what does that have to do with loseyourname's point?

Anyway, that article is just awful. The logic is just plain nonexistent. Just a couple of examples:

Yet, 53 percent approve of spying without obtaining court warrants "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism."

Why does any American think that spying without a warrant has any more effect in reducing the threat of terrorism than spying with a warrant?

I can think of several reasons: time, secrecy, and expedience. Regardless, he's assuming that since he believes one thing that people don't have a reason for believing another. That's absurd. Regardless of whether or not he agrees with the reasons, reasons exist.

Americans need desperately to understand that 95 percent of all Muslim terrorists in the world were created in the past three years by Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Really? Shocking number - where does it come from? He didn't just pull that out of the air, now did he...? And let's just assume for a minute that he's right about that - the number of Muslim terrorists have increased 20-fold in the past 3 years and they haven't successfully struck the US. So either these new terrorists all suck or they are all in Iraq. Either way, I'm ok with it.

 

[loseyourname]

A republican controlled senate isn't about to impeach a rupublican president.

Which is the implicit conclusion of my post. It is a republican senate, not a stupid American populace, that is keeping Bush from being impeached.

 

[Gokul43201]

So either these new terrorists all suck or they are all in Iraq. Either way, I'm ok with it.

Luckily for you, you don't happen to live in Iraq.

 

[SOS2008]

First, members of congress have a constituency to answer to in order to be reelected. So yes it does matter to Senators what Americans think (or fail to think) whether they like it or not.

Though the author has good credentials, it doesn’t surprise me that certain members would criticize it and say it is awful. I don’t think the polls took into account the phenomenon known as toeing the party line no matter what.

But getting back to the polls and the numbers in question, did anyone catch Meet the Press this evening? The transcripts aren’t available yet, but many of the points that are made in the article and by edward were discussed.

For example, when Americans are asked how they feel about warrantless wiretaps, they are against it. But when asked how they feel about terrorist surveillance, they are for it. If asked to weigh one against the other, many figure they aren’t sacrificing civil liberties as long as they aren’t making international calls to suspect countries. The point was specifically made on Meet the Press that these Americans do not understand the possible ramifications—they do not understand what this means!

Furthermore, what is found is there is a direct correlation between Bush’s approval ratings and the number of times BushCo repeats the words Al Qeada/terrorism–-a very well known propaganda tactic.

I doubt that Bush will be able to continue his charade for long. It will be discovered/proven that he has broken the law. When that happens, even the dumbest American will know what that means. But it’s a shame that we must go to such ends to get this through to the American public.

If people are smart they will let their Senators know to continue the investigation with no holds barred. They should want to get to the truth.

 

[ComputerGeek]

The public being stupid doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a reason why a president would be able to commit impeachable offenses without being impeached, since it isn't up to the public to impeach a president. It's up to the Senate.

Right... it is up to congress.

Gee... with a corrupt Republican leadership... you think that will get done?

Lets hope that Specter can have his hearings... I think the republicans on the Judiciary comity are actual old school republicans who dislike to much executive power and big government and all the horrible things that the Neo-Conservatives (They are disillusioned Trotskyists... at least, the first generation was... the latter generations seems to be just plain old power hungry) have brought to the republican party.

 

[russ_watters]

Luckily for you, you don't happen to live in Iraq.

That is relevant to this conversation how?

First, members of congress have a constituency to answer to in order to be reelected. So yes it does matter to Senators what Americans think (or fail to think) whether they like it or not.

Certainly. And with Bush's popularity below 50%, doesn't that imply that if there was a good reason to impeach, now is a time they could do it without losing their seats?

I don’t think the polls took into account the phenomenon known as toeing the party line no matter what.

Agreed - but nor do you when you say things like the above. The Republican senate won't impeach Bush because they are a Republican senate - the wishes of their constituency doesn't much matter here.

For example, when Americans are asked how they feel about warrantless wiretaps, they are against it. But when asked how they feel about terrorist surveillance, they are for it. If asked to weigh one against the other, many figure they aren’t sacrificing civil liberties as long as they aren’t making international calls to suspect countries. The point was specifically made on Meet the Press that these Americans do not understand the possible ramifications—they do not understand what this means!

Neither of the questions make any claim about the possible ramifications, so how can you make the logical leap to assuming what people think about international phone calls? I am a person who would vote that way in a poll and it is not because I don't make international phone calls.

You are making unwarranted/unsubstantiated assumptions about people's motives/beliefs. And it is no surprise to me that you'd get such ill-logic from Meet-the-Press.

Furthermore, what is found is there is a direct correlation between Bush’s approval ratings and the number of times BushCo repeats the words Al Qeada/terrorism –-a very well known propaganda tactic.

I've never seen such a study, but I'd suspect that its true. So what?

 

[ComputerGeek]

Just a couple of examples: I can think of several reasons: time,

FISA does a good job of that already. They can wiretap for 72 hours before they have to actually ask a judge's permission, and FISA requests have been turned down a whole 5 times in the last 30 years out of 19,000 requests.

secrecy,

FISA Court is secret... so who are they keeping secrets from? Apparently those who are designated to give oversight to these kinds of wire taps.

and expedience.

Because the easiest way is always the best way... riiight

Some advice Russ... stop listening to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. Real conservatives would not stand for this crap and guess what... they aren't

 

[ComputerGeek]

Neither of the questions make any claim about the possible ramifications, so how can you make the logical leap to assuming what people think about international phone calls? I am a person who would vote that way in a poll and it is not because I don't make international phone calls.

I think the point SOS is making is that you have news agencies framing the discussion about warantless wire taps by using the wrong polling question.

Also, may I ask, do you not find it at all disturbing that Bush has created a new buzz word for his actions that totally have no correlation as to what he is actually doing?

he is not conducting terrorist surveillance... he is drag-netting all the outbound calls and flooding the FBI will tons of irrelevant information. Not only is this counter productive to the FBI, but is breaks laws that have been on the books for a long time. Also, if FISA did not meet Bush's needs, why has he NEVER gone to congress in the last 3 years and asked congress to make a change to the FISA law? Most likely it is because Bush wanted to do things that no congress would have allowed him by law to do.

 

[SOS2008]

Here's another thought for those of you who question the polls--per the article you can Google the polls and probably see the data for yourself.

In view of the upcoming State of the Union Speech and the polls, security is the one area where Bush still has majority support. That's why Rove (the man behind the curtain) made a rare appearance last week to accuse Democrats of having a "pre-9/11 view of the world" for daring to question the legality of the [domestic spying <-- real term] program.

There's little doubt that in his State of the Union address, Bush will tell Americans that he is looking out for their security at a time of war. It will be a major theme of his speech. So will the need to stay in Iraq until the insurgency is under control.

Let's wager on how many times he will invoke 9-11 or use the words terrorist/terrorism, and particularly in conjunction with the word surveillance.

 

[russ_watters]

Some advice Russ... stop listening to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. Real conservatives would not stand for this crap and guess what... they aren't

Some advice for you: don't make assumptions about other people. I've never watched Fox News or Sean Hannity, and the only time I listen to Rush Limbaugh is if I'm in my boss's car.

 

[russ_watters]

Here's another thought for those of you who question the polls--per the article you can Google the polls and probably see the data for yourself.

Just to be clear: I do not question the polls. I question the interpretation being done by the liberal media and the 'anyone who doesn't agree with me is dumb' mentality on display here. Ie, Computergeek, I'm not going to argue the finer points of the opinions I listed. I was just pointing out that they are real opinions. Heck, I'm not even saying they are my opinions - you were assuming that as well.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Some advice for you: don't make assumptions about other people. I've never watched Fox News or Sean Hannity, and the only time I listen to Rush Limbaugh is if I'm in my boss's car.

Wow... I am surprised. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying you listened to that trash. I just cannot understand how a smart guy like yourself can use such badly debunked arguments for this domestic spying program.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Computergeek, I'm not going to argue the finer points of the opinions I listed. I was just pointing out that they are real opinions. Heck, I'm not even saying they are my opinions - you were assuming that as well.

Why not? Hiding behind the "its an opinion" argument for having such an opinion is foolish. If you cannot properly justify the opinions, then should you agree with them?

 

[russ_watters]

Why not? Hiding behind the "its an opinion" argument for having such an opinion is foolish. If you cannot properly justify the opinions, then should you agree with them?

It's real simple, CompterGeek:

FISA does a good job of that already. They can wiretap for 72 hours before they have to actually ask a judge's permission, and FISA requests have been turned down a whole 5 times in the last 30 years out of 19,000 requests.

Surely you must see that "a good job" is an entirely subjective opinion. Maybe for some people, that isn't easy enough.

 

[SOS2008]

Come on; let's get wagers going for the State of the Union. I say the words terrorist/terrorism will be used tens times--mixed with either "war on" or "surveillance." I say the word “security” will be used eight times, and 9-11 (in some way) will be used at least once.

 

[russ_watters]

Come on; let's get wagers going for the State of the Union. I say the words terrorist/terrorism will be used tens times--mixed with either "war on" or "surveillance." I say the word “security” will be used eight times, and 9-11 (in some way) will be used at least once.

Sure, why not. What's your point? You do realize that Bush is a politician, right?

 

[Art]

The public being stupid doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a reason why a president would be able to commit impeachable offenses without being impeached, since it isn't up to the public to impeach a president. It's up to the Senate.

I think it makes a lot of sense. Even republican representatives would have to look for impeachment if their voters demanded it as given the choice of Bush being out of a job or them I think they would jettison Bush in a heartbeat.

By keeping the voters dumb and ignorant it allows their elected representatives to avoid the issue.

 

[ComputerGeek]

It's real simple, CompterGeek: Surely you must see that "a good job" is an entirely subjective opinion. Maybe for some people, that isn't easy enough.

Sorry... I should have said "FISA allows for that now" so as to make sure I had provided an argument devoid of opinion.

Facts are that FISA offers everything the president needs and your opinions are debunked as wrong. Unless you can come up with an argument for them that has some substance, I think you might need to reevaluate how truthful you are being to yourself. Perhaps the only way of maintaining your current political reality is by being dishonest with yourself.

Can I let you in on a little secret? 2000 was my first time I got to vote for president. I made the mistake of voting for Bush I was fine with Bush until he began all his social crusades and the Iraq war was the lynch pin for me. It took me a while, but I came around and realized that I was ignoring a lot of bad stuff and many arguments in order that my ego would not feel the impact of me being wrong when I voted for him. The key to know when you have to make an adjustment (perhaps not as drastic as mine) is when you find yourself agreeing with actions that you cannot defend with any kind of substantive argument, but rather with semantics and "its my opinion" kind of tactics.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Come on; let's get wagers going for the State of the Union. I say the words terrorist/terrorism will be used tens times--mixed with either "war on" or "surveillance." I say the word “security” will be used eight times, and 9-11 (in some way) will be used at least once.

Terrorism/Terrorist = 40 times

Terrorist Survalance program = 10 times

War = 20 times

Security = 30 times

9/11 = 10 times

 

[russ_watters]

I think it makes a lot of sense. Even republican representatives would have to look for impeachment if their voters demanded it as given the choice of Bush being out of a job or them I think they would jettison Bush in a heartbeat.

By keeping the voters dumb and ignorant it allows their elected representatives to avoid the issue.

But people are predicting the Republicans will lose a number of seats in the next election - surely that is because the people are not happy with the Republicans' reaction to Bush?

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry... I should have said "FISA allows for that now" so as to make sure I had provided an argument devoid of opinion.

Certainly, but the question of whether that is enough is unavoidable and completely opinion-based. Do I even need to go through the thread looking for other pure opinions? Sorry, but you set yourself and fell into your own trap...

Ooh, hey, I found another one:

Facts are that FISA offers everything the president needs and your opinions are debunked as wrong.

Everything the President needs? Does it offer him a silk robe and slippers? Computergeek - you tripped over your own opinion. There really isn't any way to undo that, but it doesn't much matter if you try to undo it, because you are still doing it!

And now I simply cannot believe that you think that you removing your opinion of the law somehow means no one can have an opinion about the law. Those numbers are facts - sure - but how do you think those numbers came to be in the first place!?

 

[ComputerGeek]

Certainly, but the question of whether that is enough is unavoidable and completely opinion-based. Do I even need to go through the thread looking for other pure opinions? Sorry, but you set yourself and fell into your own trap. Everything the President needs? Does it offer him a silk robe and slippers? Computergeek - you tripped over your own opinion. There really isn't any way to undo that, but it doesn't much matter because you are still doing it.

And now I simply cannot believe that you think that you removing your opinion of the law somehow means no one can have an opinion about the law. Those numbers are facts - sure - but how do you think those numbers came to be in the first place!?

The difference Russ is that my opinions are back up with reasoning, where as you have YET to provide anything beyond "its my opinion". Opinions are fine as long as you can back them up with REASONING.

and please, could you stop kicking up dust when you have no argument? I mean seriously... rather than admit that I might have a reasonable stance, you protect your ego by ignoring my argument and saying "does it give him silk slippers and a robe?" In the context of the discussion, you know I meant as far as wire tapping americans to fight terror goes.

For the sake of argument I will concede that the FISA law sucks for fighting terror and did not offer bush everything he needed... Answer me this then, WHY WHY WHY did Bush NOT go to congress to change the law! 3 years, not a single petition. maybe if he had tried and failed and then tried again and failed again and continued on like that while at the same time doing his domestic spying, he MIGHT have had an argument that he has been trying to get the FISA law changed but congress kept blocking him.

Bush did not do that, he just ignored the law and did not even try to fix the law to meet what ever ambiguous and undefined needs the administration keep s sighting.

 

[Art]

But people are predicting the Republicans will lose a number of seats in the next election - surely that is because the people are not happy with the Republicans' reaction to Bush?

It's a question of degee. If people were fully informed (interested) then the republican party would be run out of town, as it is they might lose a few seats. Even that IMO will be mainly because people are concerned with the economy. They see massive amounts of money being spent, debt piling up and their jobs being outsourced to China. Even the GOPs spin machine cannot hide reality totally. Even stupid people know when they are struggling financially.

 

[Gokul43201]

That is relevant to this conversation how?

It's relevant in that it raises the possibly forgotten point that you could be impeached for injustices inflicted upon people who are not your country's citizens (ie : maybe it's not enough to say "this hasn't harmed me, an American")

 

[russ_watters]

The difference Russ is that my opinions are back up with reasoning, where as you have YET to provide anything beyond "its my opinion". Opinions are fine as long as you can back them up with REASONING.

C'mon, ComputerGeek - reasoning is easy: Take this one , for example: "FISA Court is secret... so who are they keeping secrets from?" Secret from the court, of course. Bush doesn't want oversight because there is no guarantee that a judge will agree with him.

Besides - why do I need to provide support for all these opinions when I'm sure that law didn't pass unanamously? It doesn't matter if your opinion is that the opinions of others are unreasonable - it is still an opinion and you know it because you stated as such.

Lets just be clear again: the issue here isn't whether one opinion is any more or less reasonable than any other, but that they are all opinions regardless of who thinks which opinion is better. That's the whole point of opinions!

and please, could you stop kicking up dust when you have no argument? I mean seriously...

Kicking up dust? Huh? You provided the argument by which your own point failed.

rather than admit that I might have a reasonable stance,

You do have a reasonable stance - the entire point here is that that doesn't mean your opinion is the only possible reasonable opinion.

For the sake of argument I will concede that the FISA law sucks for fighting terror and did not offer bush everything he needed...

Great! So we agree that you have an opinion, other people have opinions, and neither are necessarily just plain right or just plain wrong.

Answer me this then, WHY WHY WHY did Bush NOT go to congress to change the law!

Pretty simple - he didn't want to risk losing that fight.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Bush doesn't want oversight because there is no guarantee that a judge will agree with him...Pretty simple - he didn't want to risk losing that fight.

And you have no problem with Bush doing any of this? What is the standard for impeachable offense? A high crime? Well, a federal felony charge seems to be a high crime to me.

He broke the law. He did something highly illegal, you seem to be admitting it, he admits it, yet you do not care?