Republicans Know More About Politics Than Democrats, Says Study - Polidicks

[QUOTE=MBB;35702286]It was either the Daily Caller or Reason Magazine and I decided Reason was a slightly better source. [editline]24th April 2012[/editline] I found a way more in depth report: [url]http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/?src=iq-quiz[/url] Here're the parts relevant to the original article:[/QUOTE] Why didn't you just link the polling and keep the title? The polling organization already dissected the information on its own. It's not a big deal to me, but I wouldn't link a libertarian magazine of all places.

So I've been seeing quite a bit of middle-path rhetoric on here. I'm sorry to say that one cannot simply make the statement that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are equally flawed. It's just not possible. There's always going to be an imbalance. I think the problem is that we're talking about different subgroups of people from post to post. The [I]people[/I] in the different parties are not necessarily inherently stupid, but it's certainly obvious that at times the [I]politicians[/I] are. My opinion is that Republican politicians can be.. well.. pretty dumb sometimes. Only in their own way. The Republican politician is the frenzied badger in a business suit having a rabies-induced seizure on the House floor. The Democratic politician is the lemming who's tasked with cleaning up the badger's droppings and putting up with the badger being a pestering and sometimes physically violent animal with no self-control. I could sympathize with him if it weren't for the fact that the Democratic politician doesn't do much of anything to stand up to the frenzied badger. Democratic and Republican [I]people[/I] are just individuals with different priorities trying to live their lives while being stepped on or otherwise ignored by the lemming janitor-man and his frenzied badger. For me, the line of "stupidity" comes to the social issues. Don't believe in abortion? Okay. Don't like taxes? That's fine. Want to bomb Iran? Want to invade another country for no reason? Want to set Planned Parenthood buildings on fire? Want to ban homosexuality? Want to turn the United States into a Christian theocracy? Want to roll back women's rights? Do you think Obama is a secret closet Muslim Marxist plant from the Congo? Yeah, no, under those circumstances, I think I have the right to call you an idiot. Just like a Republican would have the right to call me an idiot if I ran around in a tin hat screaming about how 9/11 is an inside job by the NWO and they want to steal our babies. Thankfully the type of ideas noted above are mostly restricted to politicians like Bachmann and the worst of the Tea Party.

[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;35701217]Blown. My mind is [B]BLOWN[/B]. Like, how can the man who codified several aspects of the English language be illiterate?![/QUOTE] I say rumoured loosely because it is most likely nothing more than just a catchy tag line from this film [url]http://www.thesetonian.com/pirate-life/anonymous-delves-into-shakespeare-conspiracy-1.2667721#.T5ciO_Egfng[/url]

What both sides tend to forget is that political ideology is an OPINION and there really is no "right" and "wrong" when it comes to politics because normally whether something is good or bad is determined by which group of people is being targeted and/or effected. One could argue that more rights for unions means less flexibility for businesses and vice versa. Bickering about who's right and who's wrong and basing your logic on either "Well it seems to be working in Europe!" or "Look see! Here's a link to an article from 1998 that doesn't paint the entire picture but supports my point of view because the editor who wrote the article had a bone to pick with this." or what have you. Politics basically boils down to making the world a better place for everybody until it becomes corrupted by special interests. I personally feel that the government, big business and unions have fairly too much power while the average joe is being hung out to dry. There are problems with the government, there are problems with big businesses and their weight on our government to effect policy, and there are problems with worker's unions who, to be honest, can sometimes force companies to keep more of their less-efficient workers on the payroll when they really shouldn't be. My point is, everything is broken and there isn't one magical answer that's going to fix everything. In some places the government needs to step in, and in others, private businesses. So quit fighting everybody and try to be a part of the solution instead of being a part of the problem that's made this country more divided than ever. Ya knobs.

[QUOTE=thisispain;35702699]you are so inept i posted the actual report ages ago[/QUOTE] It's not my fault that Reason Magazine is so terrible that it doesn't link to its sources. I assumed that Pew didn't release a report for whatever reason. My apologies anyways.

This isn't even a study. It's a series of questions that have to do with the key points of both of the parties that you could get from watching Fox News. Watching Fox News doesn't make you intelligent, or anything good for that matter.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;35702433]Nowadays it seems like the media is exclusively sensationalist[/QUOTE] According to conservatives the media is less sensational and more fabulous

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35701784]It doesn't say anything about that. Its actually saying that, to keep our budding nation from dying under assault from other aggressors, the people need to be able to effectively form militias so as to protect the nation overall, during a time when a standing army wasn't exactly a big thing. But that is simply what the text says, the reasoning was far greater, and included everything from protecting the state and allowing revolt to providing effective law enforcement, allowing self-defense, and suppressing insurrection.[/QUOTE] No a militia, being an institution of the government in this time period, doesn't really need protection. Self defense was also a given. Law enforcement was unreliable and veeeeery few in number. This is the bill of rights. It is for the people. Specifically it is protecting the right of the people to stockpile armaments in order to overthrow the government, should it fail to carry out its duties. The first battle of the revolutionary war was fought over citizens stockpiling arms. It (the amendment) stems, like so many other portion of our constitution, from John Locke. Life, liberty, and property (happiness for our version) guy. He also believed that government was a contract between the people and the government, and that citizens not only had the moral right, but the obligation, to destroy their own government should it fail to serve the interests of the people. If you really want to turn this into a debate, I can certainly oblige, but I would prefer it if you just found the evidence yourself and saved me the trouble. You'll be more likely to believe it, and I can return to surfing the web.

[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;35693785]Who the hell thinks GOP supporters are open minded? Do GOP supporters even think they're open minded?[/QUOTE] A similar study found that [url=http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2012/03/study-liberals-more-likely-to.php]Democrats are more likely to ban people who disagree with them on the Internet,[/url] that does factor in with open-mindedness.

[QUOTE=Combine_dumb;35703004]What both sides tend to forget is that political ideology is an OPINION and there really is no "right" and "wrong" when it comes to politics because normally whether something is good or bad is determined by which group of people is being targeted and/or effected. One could argue that more rights for unions means less flexibility for businesses and vice versa. [/QUOTE] Yes, there is completely a right and a wrong. Pouring endless sums of money into defense? Wrong. Stripping money out of education? Wrong. Removing all liability and oversight of businesses? Wrong. The list is endless. I'm not playing this game anymore. Coddling the right wing fuckwads has destroyed us.

[QUOTE=GunFox;35703271]Yes, there is completely a right and a wrong. Pouring endless sums of money into defense? Wrong. Stripping money out of education? Wrong. Removing all liability and oversight of businesses? Wrong. The list is endless. I'm not playing this game anymore. Coddling the right wing fuckwads has destroyed us.[/QUOTE] It's quite pretentious of you to decide which opinion is innately right or wrong. That's not a fact, that's simply your way of seeing things.

This is a really basic little quiz that doesn't tell you much of anything. A few more Republicans than Democrats can identify which people are members of which party, or which party wants to shrink the war spending budget. Wow, how earthshaking.

[QUOTE=GunFox;35703232]No a militia, being an institution of the government in this time period, doesn't really need protection. Self defense was also a given. Law enforcement was unreliable and veeeeery few in number. This is the bill of rights. It is for the people. Specifically it is protecting the right of the people to stockpile armaments in order to overthrow the government, should it fail to carry out its duties. The first battle of the revolutionary war was fought over citizens stockpiling arms. It (the amendment) stems, like so many other portion of our constitution, from John Locke. Life, liberty, and property (happiness for our version) guy. He also believed that government was a contract between the people and the government, and that citizens not only had the moral right, but the obligation, to destroy their own government should it fail to serve the interests of the people. If you really want to turn this into a debate, I can certainly oblige, but I would prefer it if you just found the evidence yourself and saved me the trouble. You'll be more likely to believe it, and I can return to surfing the web.[/QUOTE]No, I'm full aware of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and the Social Contract theory and that is not in dispute, but that was not the sole purpose of the second amendment. It covered more than simply providing a means for overthrowing the government. No one is denying that this was a major influence, but it was not alone the sole influence. [editline]24th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Boba_Fett;35703499]It's quite pretentious of you to decide which opinion is right or wrong. That's not a fact, that's simply your way of seeing things.[/QUOTE]No, you know what, he is solidly right.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;35703499]It's quite pretentious of you to decide which opinion is innately right or wrong. That's not a fact, that's simply your way of seeing things.[/QUOTE] Nah, first one might be opinion, these two [QUOTE] Stripping money out of education? Wrong. Removing all liability and oversight of businesses? Wrong. [/QUOTE] Are demonstrably wrong. Read up on your American history to learn where unregulated industry leads to.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;35703587]Are demonstrably wrong. Read up on your American history to learn where unregulated industry leads to.[/QUOTE] I don't agree with those things either, I just can't stand it when someone says that a certain viewpoint is undeniably right.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;35703499]It's quite pretentious of you to decide which opinion is innately right or wrong. That's not a fact, that's simply your way of seeing things.[/QUOTE] some opinions can be objectively better than other opinions when they are better informed by reality. this sort of facebook wall post mentality wherein everyone's opinions are worthy of equal respect and above being criticized just leads to the stifling of discussion. if you think his beliefs are "wrong" (and you certainly do, despite your playing the 'let's be respectful each others' beliefs card) explain why they are wrong instead of just demanding that he respect your opinions purely on the basis of them being opinions. [editline]24th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Boba_Fett;35703624]I don't agree with those things either, I just can't stand it when someone says that a certain viewpoint is undeniably right.[/QUOTE] well if they're not "undeniably right" then you shouldn't have any difficulty coming up with detailed reasons [i]why[/i] they're not right, shouldn't you? why don't you do that instead of this little act yr. doing

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35703627](and you certainly do, despite your playing the 'let's be respectful each others' beliefs card)[/QUOTE] Except I don't. I believe that we should pull out of all of our wars, that education should be a priority, and that the market does require some degree of regulation.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;35703652]Except I don't. I believe that we should pull out of all of our wars, that education should be a priority, and that the market does require some degree of regulation.[/QUOTE] you realize that by supporting these viewpoints, or any other viewpoints for that matter, you are implicitly arguing their superiority over all other viewpoints, right? unless you're going to attest to being some weird anti-being capable of thinking something is "right" and not believing in it despite that then you really don't have any basis to criticize anyone for holding one set of beliefs over another because wicked everyone does that because it's literally the only sound framework for having a belief system at all [editline]24th April 2012[/editline] of course he thinks that his beliefs are, by some metric, innately superior to all other beliefs; if he didn't then he wouldn't think those things - he would think other things, instead

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35703627]well if they're not "undeniably right" then you shouldn't have any difficulty coming up with detailed reasons [i]why[/i] they're not right, shouldn't you? why don't you do that instead of this little act yr. doing[/QUOTE] I feel like I'd do a poor job arguing for something I don't believe in myself. However, I believe that it's important to accept the fact that others view the world in a different manner, and to outright discredit someone's opinion as pure falsity just unsettles me.

Let's stop relying on the "opinions can't be wrong" bullshit. They can. Just because you can articulate a thought in the form of an opinion does not make it valid. It's juvenile.

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;35701384]I find it hilarious how most of you are scoffing and crying fowl at this, but if there were a study that said the exact opposite, you guys would all be saying "Well duh! No surprise there! Hehe!".[/QUOTE] not really, people are pretty quick to point out if an article is really biased or over the top. It's unprofessional to write highly opinionated articles or just be too extreme.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35703736]of course he thinks that his beliefs are, by some metric, innately superior to all other beliefs; if he didn't then he wouldn't think those things - he would think other things, instead[/QUOTE] I agree with you there, naturally to some degree, I must assess my own opinions above those held by others in order for me to believe in them. But, by any means, that doesn't mean I can't value the fact others hold different opinions. [editline]24th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;35703775]Let's stop relying on the "opinions can't be wrong" bullshit. They can. Just because you can articulate a thought in the form of an opinion does not make it valid. It's juvenile.[/QUOTE] I'm merely spreading love and understanding.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;35703499]It's quite pretentious of you to decide which opinion is innately right or wrong. That's not a fact, that's simply your way of seeing things.[/QUOTE] Pouring endless money into defense at the expense of other social programs has crippled us economically. We garner very little tangible benefit and suffer the immense costs of the overwhelming majority of most NATO operations. It is a huge amount of money that has done little except continue to push the arms race forward. Stripping money out of education has placed us extremely far behind in terms of the abilities of our children. We have kids who don't have the slightest understanding of how our political system works, or even more rudimentary things like how to perform basic service for their motor vehicles or use an oven. Removing all liability and oversight of business resulted in an economic collapse which we have stilled failed to claw our way out of. This was a lesson we should have learned sometime shortly after the industrial revolution. You ALWAYS need strict controls over businesses, as they are inherently greedy objects that are made more greedy the instant they go public. They are dangerous and have sufficient funds to alter the course of our democracy and some fucking morons want LESS controls for them because they believe that the magical free market will save us. They have their opinion, and it is wrong. These things hurt us in very real ways and have no discernible benefits.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;35703774]I feel like I'd do a poor job arguing for something I don't believe in myself. However, I believe that it's important to accept the fact that others view the world in a different manner, and to outright discredit someone's opinion as pure falsity just unsettles me.[/QUOTE] what about when facts disagree with your opinion? like people who believe in creationism

[QUOTE=Lambeth;35704547]what about when facts disagree with your opinion? like people who believe in creationism[/QUOTE] Well if you're defining creationist as someone who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, then that isn't a question of opinion, they're just flat out objectively wrong. oh god the ghost rater has returned

[QUOTE=Lambeth;35704547]what about when facts disagree with your opinion? like people who believe in creationism[/QUOTE] While I do believe you should respect their beliefs, yes, there is pretty clear scientific evidence that proves that creationism is in-fact incorrect. There is, however, no irrefutable scientific evidence pertaining to the three issues Gunfox brought up, making those opinions, not facts.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;35704754]While I do believe you should respect their beliefs, yes, there is pretty clear scientific evidence that proves that creationism is in-fact incorrect. There is, however, no irrefutable scientific evidence pertaining to the three issues Gunfox brought up, making those opinions, not facts.[/QUOTE] Except these are well documented facts supported by evidence. Unless you can explain to us why we need to have the strongest Military in the world when we haven't been in a direct conflict with a major world power since World War 2. Or why for such a rich country we have a lower adult literacy rate than Cuba. Or how the existence of Rockefeller or the Big Four don't directly contradict the belief that a free market is self regulatory.

[QUOTE=Melkor;35705409]Except these are well documented facts supported by evidence. Unless you can explain to us why we need to have the strongest Military in the world when we haven't been in a direct conflict with a major world power since World War 2. Or why for such a rich country we have a lower adult literacy rate than Cuba. Or how the existence of Rockefeller or the Big Four don't directly contradict the belief that a free market is self regulatory.[/QUOTE] You'd need a lot more information to make it a proven fact. And, you'd have to realize that a lot of the information can be dependent upon other factors. Otherwise, for example, I'd be able to say, "It is a fact that Stalinism doesn't work because the Soviet Union collapsed". While the collapse of the Soviet Union might make a good argument against the effectiveness of Stalinism, it, by no means, proves that the fact that Stalinism is incapable of working. Likewise, as a more relevant example, someone in support of a larger military budget could spin the situation of our lack of any major military actions in their favor. They could say that, because of the size of our military, other nations have been hesitant to provoke the wrath of the United States, and, because of this, significant conflicts have been avoided. Keep in mind I'm playing devil's advocate with this one, and I don't actually support the further expansion of the US military budget. However, I don't like to kid myself into believing that my opinions are purely and unconditionally correct, and I'm willing to look at things from other viewpoints.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;35703499]It's quite pretentious of you to decide which opinion is innately right or wrong. That's not a fact, that's simply your way of seeing things.[/QUOTE] Hitler should have killed all the Jews. Go.

[QUOTE=Fables;35705913]Hitler should have killed all the Jews. Go.[/QUOTE] Er.. fuck