Maybe not. Obama's a huge disappointment and I really like eating...nevermind.
Let's take a look at some other Fox News contributors.
Oliver North-Pardoned after committing treason by selling weapons to Iran, using the proceeds to fund Latin American fascist terrorist groups, and then helping those groups import crack and conduct political hits in LA. Also thought up the REX 84 plan for continuation of government in cases of mass dissent which involves deputizing hate groups and shipping people off to concentration camps.
Dick Morris-Made a ridiculous career out of a personal vendetta against the Clintons after his career was ruined by a toe-sucking prostitution scandal.
Mark Fuhrman-Racist, dirty cop. Destroyed the OJ case by using the word n*gger one too many times, resulting in a murderer being released.
Karl Rove-Dirty campaigner, propagandist, professional liar, and perjurer.
Joseph Cafasso- Military analyst who broke the law by forging/misrepresenting his military record.
Retarded is retarded.
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
YouTube videoRetarded is retarded.
I got about 30 seconds into that vid before I faceplamed through the back of my head. I couldn't even get anywhere near to finishing the vid.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I got about 30 seconds into that vid before I faceplamed through the back of my head. I couldn't even get anywhere near to finishing the vid.
If you watched the vid, the female reporter asks Palin what newspaper she reads.
Her response was ridiculous.. it's like something a grade school drop-out would say.
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
It's funny how Americans supported someone, who was running for the 2nd highest position in the land, who don't even read newspapers.If you watched the vid, the female reporter asks Palin what newspaper she reads.
Her response was ridiculous.. it's like something a grade school drop-out would say.
Ugh.
What is GOING through that lady's head?
Someone that makes Bush look like a smart eloquent speaker....is Pathetic.
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
It's funny how Americans supported someone, who was running for the 2nd highest position in the land, who don't even read newspapers.If you watched the vid, the female reporter asks Palin what newspaper she reads.
Her response was ridiculous.. it's like something a grade school drop-out would say.
...and she will be the next president of the US. 😛
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
It's funny how Americans supported someone, who was running for the 2nd highest position in the land, who don't even read newspapers.If you watched the vid, the female reporter asks Palin what newspaper she reads.
Her response was ridiculous.. it's like something a grade school drop-out would say.
intellectuals actually scare the voting population a lot of the time.
Voting, rather than being about logical political descisions, is governed largely by appearance, similarity and likability.
The happy guy you want to have a beer with who seems certain in their ignorance is much more appealing to the human mind than is a brainy person who considers options, unless you happen to be that type of person. Then there are crazy US issues like increased partisanship along with increased interest in/knowledge of political issues.
Originally posted by inimalist
intellectuals actually scare the voting population a lot of the time.Voting, rather than being about logical political descisions, is governed largely by appearance, similarity and likability.
The happy guy you want to have a beer with who seems certain in their ignorance is much more appealing to the human mind than is a brainy person who considers options, unless you happen to be that type of person. Then there are crazy US issues like increased partisanship along with increased interest in/knowledge of political issues.
Which is why I want a proficiency test: if you don't know jack about your candidate, you shouldn't get to vote. That takes a sh*t on the idea of a democratic republic...as the idea is to familiarize yourself with the candidates that would best represent your ideas, and you vote for them.
Instead, we've got conservatards voting for John McLame who literally said he supported roe vs. wade, and said he didn't, said he was for gay marriage, and said he didn't, etc. etc. etc.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Which is why I want a proficiency test: if you don't know jack about your candidate, you shouldn't get to vote. That takes a sh*t on the idea of a democratic republic...as the idea is to familiarize yourself with the candidates that would best represent your ideas, and you vote for them.Instead, we've got conservatards voting for John McLame who literally said he supported roe vs. wade, and said he didn't, said he was for gay marriage, and said he didn't, etc. etc. etc.
here is the problem imho:
In America, knowing about politics is NOT associated with having a more balanced opinion of the issues or even a better understanding of them. The American political system, instead, produces people who are exceptionally educated in why either the Dems or the Reps are correct. Even basic political knowledge in America produces a bias.
Now, this is preferable to the common person, who when questioned has no coherent political opinions (more representative of the Conservative you mention), but is totally not ideal, especially in the system you mention.
I haven't seen any expansions of this research, especially with regard to nations like Canada with a multi-party system, and a generally greater apathy toward parlimentary democracy. Potentially, the lack of affiliation with a single party (because no Canadian parties really mean anything anymore) and no singularly dominant party (where as in America it is black and white) would mean political education might produce people with a wider bredth of understanding.
In America, the problem would be, getting the educated wouldn't eliminate this ignorant bias. In fact, it would polorize it even more.