Pew Political IQ Poll: Republicans Consistently More Knowledgeable

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:
jnd wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Wow, great job guys. If you can score high on that, you MUST be smart…

No, but if you score low on that you are not entitled to a political opinion.

So YOUR freedom comes with an test? Wow!

jnd

How are they any less free for being a dolt?

Um, I’m pretty sure you said they are not entitled to a political opinion if they score poorly on that test. Which means that you think they should not have any influence if they do poorly. Which is to say they are less free.

Right to influence others = freedom? Maybe you should get a dictionary.

If some people are free to do something that other people are not, no matter what it is, the latter group is less free. Pretty easy, right?[/quote]

That depends.

Am I somehow less free because I cannot paint or play an instrument?

42

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

It’s also telling that the most educated people tend to be liberal.[/quote]

Incorrect - people who tend to seek out higher levels of formal education and achieve degrees related to them (including more and more specialization) are mostly politically liberal.

Most educated? Nope.

43

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Um, there have been quite a lot of conservatives who have blamed the situation of homeowners who took loans they couldn’t pay back. I honestly don’t know how you could have missed this?[/quote]

That is precisely the genesis of the problem, aided and abetted by government policy and Wall Street hedonism.

Let me guess - your tenured professor tell you something different?

44

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
valiant knight wrote:
Liberals are ignorant about the real world.

That’s why they have to have their own special news network that won’t break the seal on their parallel reality, eh? Ohhh, right…

Anyway, it’s the conervatives who deny evolution, deny global warming, insist Iraq had WMDs, blame the financial crisis on poor people, etc.

You want to rethink that statement? Oh, of course you don’t. You’re a conservative.
[/quote]

Lol. The data is in. What is there to contest? Liberals are more ignorant. The data can only reflect reality. Liberals are young and naive; nice feelings and good intentions are enough. By your denial you only prove the point. A good joke! Conservatives are older and wiser and know what’s actually going on, thereby turning the ignorant dreamer into the knowledgeable conservative.

When you grow up you’ll understand. That is, if you have any balls.

It is instructive to know that had I voted, I would have voted for Obama. Yet within a month and a half, by December of last year I had already changed my tune. I learned about Islam, about socialist Europe, about Obama. The scales were lifted from my eyes. I was no longer young and ignorant, a fool much like yourself. (Except I wasn’t ever dumb enough to be a Communist)

As for journalists and academics, everyone knows they tend to be naive, sheltered and effeminate. They only fool themselves when they tell themselves they are smarter. No one but each other cares to hear the hot air of their hand wringing and moaning. Such men are weak and afraid of what it takes to be a man. They are not fit to lead.

You can learn here a valuable lesson: just because all the losers agree on something doesn’t mean they are right. Of course as a socialist you would be afraid to think for yourself and stand out from the pack.

45

[quote]valiant knight wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
valiant knight wrote:
Liberals are ignorant about the real world.

That’s why they have to have their own special news network that won’t break the seal on their parallel reality, eh? Ohhh, right…

Anyway, it’s the conervatives who deny evolution, deny global warming, insist Iraq had WMDs, blame the financial crisis on poor people, etc.

You want to rethink that statement? Oh, of course you don’t. You’re a conservative.

Lol. The data is in. What is there to contest? Liberals are more ignorant. The data can only reflect reality. Liberals are young and naive; nice feelings and good intentions are enough. By your denial you only prove the point. A good joke! Conservatives are older and wiser and know what’s actually going on, thereby turning the ignorant dreamer into the knowledgeable conservative.

When you grow up you’ll understand. That is, if you have any balls.

It is instructive to know that had I voted, I would have voted for Obama. Yet within a month and a half, by December of last year I had already changed my tune. I learned about Islam, about socialist Europe, about Obama. The scales were lifted from my eyes. I was no longer young and ignorant, a fool much like yourself. (Except I wasn’t ever dumb enough to be a Communist)

As for journalists and academics, everyone knows they tend to be naive, sheltered and effeminate. They only fool themselves when they tell themselves they are smarter. No one but each other cares to hear the hot air of their hand wringing and moaning. Such men are weak and afraid of what it takes to be a man. They are not fit to lead.

You can learn here a valuable lesson: just because all the losers agree on something doesn’t mean they are right. Of course as a socialist you would be afraid to think for yourself and stand out from the pack.[/quote]

LOL

46

[quote]valiant knight wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
valiant knight wrote:
Liberals are ignorant about the real world.

That’s why they have to have their own special news network that won’t break the seal on their parallel reality, eh? Ohhh, right…

Anyway, it’s the conervatives who deny evolution, deny global warming, insist Iraq had WMDs, blame the financial crisis on poor people, etc.

You want to rethink that statement? Oh, of course you don’t. You’re a conservative.

Lol. The data is in. What is there to contest? Liberals are more ignorant. The data can only reflect reality. Liberals are young and naive; nice feelings and good intentions are enough. By your denial you only prove the point. A good joke! Conservatives are older and wiser and know what’s actually going on, thereby turning the ignorant dreamer into the knowledgeable conservative.

When you grow up you’ll understand. That is, if you have any balls.

It is instructive to know that had I voted, I would have voted for Obama. Yet within a month and a half, by December of last year I had already changed my tune. I learned about Islam, about socialist Europe, about Obama. The scales were lifted from my eyes. I was no longer young and ignorant, a fool much like yourself. (Except I wasn’t ever dumb enough to be a Communist)

As for journalists and academics, everyone knows they tend to be naive, sheltered and effeminate. They only fool themselves when they tell themselves they are smarter. No one but each other cares to hear the hot air of their hand wringing and moaning. Such men are weak and afraid of what it takes to be a man. They are not fit to lead.

You can learn here a valuable lesson: just because all the losers agree on something doesn’t mean they are right. Of course as a socialist you would be afraid to think for yourself and stand out from the pack.[/quote]

The scales were lifted from your eyes? WTF does that even mean???

jnd

47

[quote]orion wrote:That depends.

Am I somehow less free because I cannot paint or play an instrument?

[/quote]

If you are specifically disallowed from painting or playing an instrument, then yes.

48

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Um, there have been quite a lot of conservatives who have blamed the situation of homeowners who took loans they couldn’t pay back. I honestly don’t know how you could have missed this?

That is precisely the genesis of the problem, aided and abetted by government policy and Wall Street hedonism.[/quote]

Wrong. To ignore the securitization of mortgages and lack of regulation of said mortagages is both asinine and dishonest. Not that I’d expect anything different from you.

49

Haha. The data is on on global warming too (and much more, I might add) but that carries no weight in your mind. I might be excused for brushing off one poll. But OK! One Internet poll is authoritative, right? Well, if you want to believe one little pissant poll, go right ahead. I can’t bear to interfere with a child who is having fun.

Except that they had no idea what was going on in the housing market, the mortgage-backed securities market, Iraq, Afghanistan…

Conservatives are usually older, that’s true. But you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

Ha! As he regurgitates the Official Opinions he was fed from Fox News. Once you figure out what balls are, let me know.

You’re dumb enough to have been wrong about everything you’ve talked about so far.

Oh good, lot of self-aggrandizing and pathetic insults to avoid having to make any real points. That’s right, “everyone knows” these things, and by “everyone,” you mean you and your conservatives pals, eh? Let me tell you something son: it doesn’t take a man to insult someone. Children do it all the time. It does take a man to look at what is going on around him and honestly think for himself. It’s rarely done by anyone and is something conservatives steadfastly refuse to do, especially now, when they’re engaged in the most powerful groupthink I’ve ever witnessed.

A classic! He says this to the ONLY SOCIALIST ON THE BOARD, to a chorus of cheers from THE REST OF THE REPUBLICANS. Good day sir!

50

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:That depends.

Am I somehow less free because I cannot paint or play an instrument?

If you are specifically disallowed from painting or playing an instrument, then yes.
[/quote]

That is not the issue.

If I expected someone else to listed without even trying to learn to play, thats bad.

And if I vote for someone to take my money at gunpoint without even trying to understand the issues, thats just plain nasty.

51

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Wrong. To ignore the securitization of mortgages and lack of regulation of said mortagaes is both asinine and dishonest. Not that I’d expect anything different from you.[/quote]

The securitization of mortgages was allowed unfettered precisely because the federal regulators - Fannie Mae, et al. - wanted to use said securitization to get the risky loans the policies encouraged off the books of banks. The Fanne Mae mandarins knew saw securitization as a full-proof way to move the inevitable risk around that the subprime lending ultimately invited.

Securitization was the best friend of those who wanted to relax lending standards - i.e., those that wanted to extend loans to people who simply couldn’t afford them in the name of “social justice” - it was yet another way to postpone the the bill for the irresponsibility of the policies that created this mess in the first place. No, far from being wary of “securitization”, the “social justice” crowd loooooooved securitization because it obscured economic realities long enough to keep the money flowing irresponsibly.

Secondly, the familiar - and stupid - argument that there wasn’t enough regualtion is misguided. There was plenty of regulation preventing lenders from improvidently lending to people who couldn’t afford it - “social justice” policies like the CRA relaxed those regulations and encouraged lenders to take on more risks.

And how they did they insure against the deregulation in the name of “social justice”? They backed the relaxed regualions created by the CRA, etc. with a government guarantee on the loans should the subprime borrower default.

Don’t like the relaxation of regulations, no problem - then you’re mad not at fatcat bankers, but rather at the very “social justice” policy pushers that told bankers “you must lend to people you otherwise would not, and don’t sweat the credit risk, we’ll back every loan you make with government money.”

Go back to your trust fund, child, and come back when you’ve learned something.

EDIT: typo fixed.

52

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:That depends.

Am I somehow less free because I cannot paint or play an instrument?

If you are specifically disallowed from painting or playing an instrument, then yes.
[/quote]

And just because it fits in here:

Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.
H. L. Mencken

Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses.
H. L. Mencken

Democracy is only a dream: it should be put in the same category as Arcadia, Santa Claus, and Heaven.
H. L. Mencken

Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.
H. L. Mencken

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
H. L. Mencken

Don’t overestimate the decency of the human race.
H. L. Mencken

Or in other words, I challenge the believe that “real democracy” would be the answer.

I shudder at the thought.

Id rather be enslaved by greedy capitalist pigs than by the unwashed masses.

The first only wants my money, the others my soul.

53

Funny thing is, the unwashed masses always end up being steered by those greedy pigs.

There is on “real democracy” like there is no “real free market”.

54

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Funny thing is, the unwashed masses always end up being steered by those greedy pigs.

There is on “real democracy” like there is no “real free market”.[/quote]

I know, but that raises some questions for him:

A) If there is no “real democracy” and his utopia depends upon it, what then?

B) If too much of a free market can be a bad thing according to him why does he automatically assume that there is no such thing as “too much democracy”?

Also, maybe said masses end up doing what the capitalists want. However as long as those capitalist have to convince instead of being able to coerce the market is free enough for me. When they start to tell me instead of asking me I have a problem. Or maybe I become one, I it depends how one sees it I guess.

55

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Secondly, the familiar - and stupid - argument that there wasn’t enough regualtion is misguided. There was plenty of regulation preventing lenders from improvidently lending to people who couldn’t afford it - “social justice” policies like the CRA relaxed those regulations and encouraged lenders to take on more risks.
[/quote]

This is correct. There were plenty regulations and I’m not sure where the claim to the contrary even originated, but people keep repeating it.

56

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Missed the Afghan troops number question.[/quote]

Me too.

57

Why would you vote for someone to take your money? :slight_smile:

58

Quite right–the banks. They were more eager than anyone to relax lending standards, because they stood to make more money off riskier loans. Follow the money, then you won’t make as many mistakes.

This is such a stupid argument that it pains me to even respond to it. If a large bank doesn’t want to lend money, they won’t. That’s been made abundantly clear lately, under intense pressure from the Obama Administration to resume making loans to small businesses and etc. They haven’t. The administration didn’t want them to pay out large bonuses. They did anyway. So you’re asking me to believe that the last administration held tyrannical power over these banks, yet this influence has mysteriously died away under the current administration, which actually now has a political stake in the granting of loans (and whom people are accusing of ACTUALLY TAKING tyrannical control over the banks)? You’re asking me to believe that the people who clearly have control over the financial sector didn’t have control over the financial sector. Throughout the whole thing, you conveniently forget the fact that even if they were forced (they clearly weren’t), they didn’t care because the securitization meant it wasn’t their problem anymore. Furthermore, prime loans had a higher default rate than subprime. Moreover, not all subprime loans were made to low-income borrowers. A variety of loans fall under this category for one reason or another, and not an insignificant amount go to people with good credit ratings and stable incomes. So don’t try to pass off this crap about the “poor banks,” who were “forced to make these loans.” They complained about it, right? Oh, that’s right, they were making billions and billions of dollars.

Yes yes, I know you’re desperate to pin this entire thing on the CRA, and I don’t deny that it had an effect, but to say that it was the sole cause, or even the main one is wrong. The Act was weakened under the Bush Administration, and if you think that federal regulators, who couldn’t even spot the biggest Ponzi scheme in history, were breathing fire in their enforcement of the CRA, then I just don’t know what to say. Even if they were, it wouldn’t account for the fact that half of all subprime loans were made by institutions not subject to CRA requirements.

Oh yeah, that reminds me, credit-default swaps were exempted from regulation.

Actually, I’m not really mad at bankers. I don’t particularly care for them, but they’re just doing what anyone would in a flawed system.

Funny: the thought that you would actually want to learn something.

59

[quote]orion wrote:I know, but that raises some questions for him:

A) If there is no “real democracy” and his utopia depends upon it, what then?[/quote]

The sense of self-importance that a libertarian gets from completely misunderstanding an argument will never cease to amuse me. The fact that he simultaneously contradicts himself makes it almost too funny for words. But maybe you’re not talking to me, since I neither speak of nor believe in a utopia, but it is telling that a world in which needless poverty is eliminated and nations are not involved in constant warfare constitutes a “utopia” to a capitalist.

You imply A.) that I have said there is no such thing as too much democracy, and B.) that we live in one. Both of which are utterly false. But, libertarians have taken more dubious statements as axioms, so perhaps I shouldn’t complain.

60

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
This is such a stupid argument that it pains me to even respond to it. If a large bank doesn’t want to lend money, they won’t.

So don’t try to pass off this crap about the “poor banks,” who were “forced to make these loans.”
[/quote]

Whoosh Someone has lost the plot. You.

If a bank doesn’t want to lend money then it is difficult to make them. They leant the money because they could turn around and sell the mortgages straight away and thus avoid the risk. Pretty damn obvious.

Now thunderbolt23 then said the “social justice” crowd didn’t try to fix this problem because it helped their ideology. And as someone ‘sort of’ in the industry the risks were clear. However everyone was making bucketloads and the common understanding was the government would step in if things went pear shaped. The government certainly didn’t dissuade this view.

Without the implicit government support traders would have been more wary of trading in asset backed securities.

By ‘sort of’ I mean I write trading software.