Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush

  1. SOS2008

    SOS2008 1,523
    Gold Member

    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:

    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):

    A must read.
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. 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 gonna 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.
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2006
  4. loseyourname

    loseyourname 3,345
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

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

    Staff: Mentor

    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:
    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.
    Really? Shocking number - where does it come from? He didn't just pull that out of the air, now did he...? And lets 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.
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2006
  7. loseyourname

    loseyourname 3,345
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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.
  8. Gokul43201

    Gokul43201 11,044
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Luckily for you, you don't happen to live in Iraq.
  9. SOS2008

    SOS2008 1,523
    Gold Member

    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.
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2006
  10. 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.
  11. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    That is relevant to this conversation how?
    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?
    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.
    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.
    I've never seen such a study, but I'd suspect that its true. So what?
  12. 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.

    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.

    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
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2006
  13. 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.
  14. SOS2008

    SOS2008 1,523
    Gold Member

    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 :yuck: 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. :eek: :surprised 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.
  15. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
  16. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2006
  17. 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.
  18. 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?
  19. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
  20. SOS2008

    SOS2008 1,523
    Gold Member

    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.
  21. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    Sure, why not. What's your point? You do realize that Bush is a politician, right? :surprised
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thead via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?