New Poll: 24% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim

[JohnStOnge]

Ok. We all know that the level to which the general public is informed (or not informed) is frightening. How about if we all agree to work towards amending the Constitution so that people must pass a poll test before being allowed to vote?

[OL FU]

I propose the Maldive Islands.

I propose Easter Island.

Careful what you wish for, guys... he'd have them the leading economic and military power in the world within the decade.

They may be ahead of us in ten years anyway

[blueballs]

The fact that there's even a question about this when at least 80% of the population identifies itself as at least christian leaning is perplexing at first; but the more I considered it I think it really underscores the number that the media and popular culture did on the country in 2008, along with a BIG assist from bad timing in the economy.

Hopefully our country wakes up and takes itself back to the middle come November and in 2012, because the damage that has been done in the last three years will take generations to fix.

[Skjellyfetti]

Ok. We all know that the level to which the general public is informed (or not informed) is frightening. How about if we all agree to work towards amending the Constitution so that people must pass a poll test before being allowed to vote?

No.

How about we agree to make education more of a priority?

[Col Hogan]

Ok. We all know that the level to which the general public is informed (or not informed) is frightening. How about if we all agree to work towards amending the Constitution so that people must pass a poll test before being allowed to vote?

No.

How about we agree to make education more of a priority?

If you're talking about at the state level... YES, YES, YES...

If you're talking at the federal level, absolutely NOT!!!

[mainejeff]

Another 21% thinks that he's a Muslin.

[houndawg]

"And the Final Jeopardy answer is: Congress".

Who said: "The United States are in no sense a Christian nation".

"Correct! We have a new Champion!"

We thank the rest of you for playing and we have some lovely gifts for you.

How about link for your quote?

Treaty with Tripoli, ratified by Congress in 1790.

[Skjellyfetti]

No.

How about we agree to make education more of a priority?

If you're talking about at the state level... YES, YES, YES...

If you're talking at the federal level, absolutely NOT!!!

Both. Part of the problem is that the worst states don't care about education.... they need a kick in the ass from the federal level. States like Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, South Carolina. The federal government can't just sit back and hope those states figure out how to educate their populace.

[Col Hogan]

If you're talking about at the state level... YES, YES, YES...

If you're talking at the federal level, absolutely NOT!!!

Both. Part of the problem is that the worst states don't care about education.... they need a kick in the ass from the federal level. States like Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, South Carolina. The federal government can't just sit back and hope those states figure out how to educate their populace.

Why can't the federal government "just sit back"...the Constitution gives the federal government NO AUTHORITY to be involved in education...and by the federal government getting involved where they shouldn't, you relieve those lazy states from any responsibility of doing their job...

And the voters in those states are the one's who don't care about education...they have that right...because if they did care, they would vote for leaders who would improve their situation...

[Grizalltheway]

I think the Chinese would wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments, Col.

[expandspanos]

JJ, I agree with you up to a point, but as for the folks that were protesting the war I'd point out that the vast majority of them would protest armed conflict regardless of the reasons listed. 95% of them would have protested our involvement in WWII. If the Chinese were making an amphibious landing in California right now they would be protesting war with the Chinese. Just like a broken clock is correct twice a day, so were they.

Completely disagree with you-

There is a huge difference between:

A. Protecting your country when you are being attacked by an army
B. Attacking a country that had nothing to do with an attack half way around the world (Iraq) and that was a sovereign country (sure they didn't have the best government, but neither do we) and killing 1,000,000+ people.

Do you understand the difference?

If China invaded us, I would expect the full force of the American military to be directed at repelling them (of course). Unfortunately, most of our troops are so messed up from fighting multiple tours in these unnecessary wars to be 100% effective at protecting our country anymore from a viable threat. Not to mention our national treasure is being drained.

Also, these wars are creating huge resentment for the U.S.A. around the world, and will innevitably cause more extremism in the future (which is probably the goal), potentially setting us up to the the "bad guy" in a WWIII scenario, where we lose.

[BDKJMU]

JJ, I agree with you up to a point, but as for the folks that were protesting the war I'd point out that the vast majority of them would protest armed conflict regardless of the reasons listed. 95% of them would have protested our involvement in WWII. If the Chinese were making an amphibious landing in California right now they would be protesting war with the Chinese. Just like a broken clock is correct twice a day, so were they.

Completely disagree with you-

There is a huge difference between:

A. Protecting your country when you are being attacked by an army
B. Attacking a country that had nothing to do with an attack half way around the world (Iraq) and that was a sovereign country (sure they didn't have the best government, but neither do we) and killing 1,000,000+ people.

Do you understand the difference?

If China invaded us, I would expect the full force of the American military to be directed at repelling them (of course). Unfortunately, most of our troops are so messed up from fighting multiple tours in these unnecessary wars to be 100% effective at protecting our country anymore from a viable threat. Not to mention our national treasure is being drained.

Also, these wars are creating huge resentment for the U.S.A. around the world, and will innevitably cause more extremism in the future (which is probably the goal), potentially setting us up to the the "bad guy" in a WWIII scenario, where we lose.

Over a million people in Iraq?

Typical leftist response- now BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan were unecessary.

[CID1990]

JJ, I agree with you up to a point, but as for the folks that were protesting the war I'd point out that the vast majority of them would protest armed conflict regardless of the reasons listed. 95% of them would have protested our involvement in WWII. If the Chinese were making an amphibious landing in California right now they would be protesting war with the Chinese. Just like a broken clock is correct twice a day, so were they.

Completely disagree with you-

There is a huge difference between:

A. Protecting your country when you are being attacked by an army
B. Attacking a country that had nothing to do with an attack half way around the world (Iraq) and that was a sovereign country (sure they didn't have the best government, but neither do we) and killing 1,000,000+ people.

Do you understand the difference?

If China invaded us, I would expect the full force of the American military to be directed at repelling them (of course). Unfortunately, most of our troops are so messed up from fighting multiple tours in these unnecessary wars to be 100% effective at protecting our country anymore from a viable threat. Not to mention our national treasure is being drained.

Also, these wars are creating huge resentment for the U.S.A. around the world, and will innevitably cause more extremism in the future (which is probably the goal), potentially setting us up to the the "bad guy" in a WWIII scenario, where we lose.

You spent a lot of time and ink missing the point, so I will put it in simpler terms:

Precious few of the people who protested OIF did so for reasons having anything to do with whether or not Iraq had WMDs. They protested armed conflict because that is what they do.

There was a fairly significant anti-war crowd during WWII, and they also held their beliefs as a result of their general anti-war slant, and not due to any idea that Germany and Japan were not somehow a threat. In fact, prior to Japan's attack in Hawaii, popular opinion had us staying out of the war. (Although a Germany in possession of the UK was a MUCH greater threat to the US than Japan ever could have been, for more reasons than there is room for here.

Thanks for pointing out the difference between WWII and OIF for me though. I had no idea.

[AZGrizFan]

I propose the Maldive Islands.

I propose Easter Island.

Careful what you wish for, guys... he'd have them the leading economic and military power in the world within the decade.

How do you figure? He was given the keys to the leading economic and military power in the world and has fucked it up beyond repair in just 18 months.

[houndawg]

Completely disagree with you-

There is a huge difference between:

A. Protecting your country when you are being attacked by an army
B. Attacking a country that had nothing to do with an attack half way around the world (Iraq) and that was a sovereign country (sure they didn't have the best government, but neither do we) and killing 1,000,000+ people.

Do you understand the difference?

If China invaded us, I would expect the full force of the American military to be directed at repelling them (of course). Unfortunately, most of our troops are so messed up from fighting multiple tours in these unnecessary wars to be 100% effective at protecting our country anymore from a viable threat. Not to mention our national treasure is being drained.

Also, these wars are creating huge resentment for the U.S.A. around the world, and will innevitably cause more extremism in the future (which is probably the goal), potentially setting us up to the the "bad guy" in a WWIII scenario, where we lose.

Over a million people in Iraq?

Typical leftist response- now BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan were unecessary.

Afghanistan was necessary. Afghanistan became unnecessary the moment your boy George said that he "didn't think about him much".

"Him", of course, being Osama bin Laden, who, btw, remains at large today, whereabouts unknown.