The "How Obama Got Elected" Zombie Voters video has gone viral. I posted it late last evening and it burned up the internet overnight.
Hannity and Colmes also talked to the man, John Ziegler, who commissioned the Zogby poll and did the documentary video last night (see below).
John Ziegler said he would bet Alan Colmes the money he spent on this video and poll, which was about $13,0000, and said if they got the same poll results or worse, he'd pay double their expenses.
Ziegler said the people in this video were not chosen by him, but were chosen by a black female.
Ziegler blamed the "mainstream" media more than these ignorant voters. He is right that the media deserves plenty of blame, because they put themselves forward as being "objective" and "unbiased"...and their behavior during this election made a mockery of that claim like never before.
However, it is every person's responsibility to ensure for themselves that they are knowledgeable and informed about the candidates and issues. In this day and age where an abundance of information and news sources are available, it is inexcusable for an American to be anywhere near this uninformed about the candidates and issues.
Ball games, the latest Britney Spears CD, new cell phone ring tones, and Survivor: Third Moon of Jupiter are not more important than our civic duty to be informed voters.
Sean Hannity said these interviews mirrored the results he gets when he does "man on the street" interviews his radio show; I've heard a number of these interviews, and they are truly pathetic.
Some of the Zogby results:
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
If I was Barack Obama and knew that this was my voter base, I would be profoundly ashamed.
"The media coverage of this campaign was so scandalous, so beyond bias into the realm of media malpractice."
10 comments:
Ribbit!
Sorry thing is there are people that don't know these people exist.
Snorpht FingerPoot
Oh so now the blame game starts.
The truth is, a majority of Americans couldn't answer those questions, not just Obama supporters. It's very easy to interview 12 ppl and then play all the answers they got wrong. What about the lady that asked John McCain at a rally if Obama was an Arab? It would be unfair for me to assume that everyone who voted for McCain was as stupid as her. Yes it's true, undecideds usually decide elections, and yes they are usually politically illiterate. That's nothing new. And it's certainly not fair to blame them for a Republican loss when they were responsible for 2 Republican wins beforehand.
Yes its also possible to blame the media whenever you lose, but the truth is undecided don't get into MSNBC or FoxNews and so they don't get alot of the left wing or right wing spin. Most of what they pick up comes from local news channels. Do all local news channels have a liberal bias?
The real reason the Republicans lost is two-fold: George W. Bush and John McCain. George W. Bush's precidency has been disasterous. He has had some of the lowest poll numbers ever for the longest amount of time. Winning with an (R) after your name following his precidency was next to impossible. And John McCain's campaign was terrible. It was a series of day to day tactics, no strategy. He decided to play to his base, rather than play to the center, where most Americans are. All this resulted in a trouncing on election day... no one to blame but yourselves.
Barack Obama has an Arab-sounding name, attended Islamic school when he was a child, has lived in heavily Islamic countries, so I think asking the question (i.e. seeking to be informed--something these voters didn't bother with) is understandable.
I'm sure the law of averages dictates there are some zombies in the Right, but as John Ziegler said in this video, I think it's a safe bet that the ignoramus' on the Left vastly outnumber those on the Right--and this video is a proof of that. Liberalism is fueled primarily by emotionalism while conservatism is driven primarily by facts, thought, logic and reason.
As these Obama voters illustrated, you don't need facts or information to embrace liberalism or a liberal candidate. It is almost impossible to embrace conservative ideas without becoming informed and thinking about the issues.
And yes, McCain's campaign was pretty inept (I can't count the times I asked myself, "Does this guy want to win???").
But an objective media (that is the "product" being sold to us, but not what we're getting) is vital to the maintenance of a healthy representative democracy. You notice that these zombies knew all the distorted slurs against Sarah Palin (the "objective" media made sure the word got out on those), but none of the demonstrable facts about Obama's and Biden's gaffes and detractors. If they had been fairly and objectively provided both the good and bad information about both Dems and Repubs, would the outcome of the election have been the same? To their credit, I think if they had been spoon-fed candid, unfiltered information on all candidates, even many of these zombies would have reached different conclusions.
But you're right. It's ultimately our own responsibility to ensure we're informed. It's just a shame that all the folks who went to the trouble to research the candidates and issues must suffer under a socialist presidency along with all the zombies (who will likely be too brain-dead to even realize they're suffering anyway).
"Barack Obama has an Arab-sounding name"
Barack Obama is a Swahili name, which is an African, not Arabian language.
"attended Islamic school when he was a child"
It was a public school. Even Fox News, who broke the story that it was a madrassa, recanted that story when reporters actually visited the school.
"has lived in heavily Islamic countries"
Yes, Indonesia is the world's most populous MUSLIM country. But the lady said Obama was an ARAB. An Arab is an ethnicity, not a religion, as I'm sure you are aware. Many Arabs are Muslim, but a high number are also Christian. What I assume the lady meant to say was that Obama is Muslim, because of his name. However, because she was not very intelligent, confused that with Arab. That would be like me wanted to say someone was a Christian and instead calling them Hispanic or Caucasian.
"I think it's a safe bet that the ignoramus' on the Left vastly outnumber those on the Right"
That's an opinion. I am not biased enough to conclude that someone who is liberal is smarter or dumber than someone who is conservative.
"conservatism is driven primarily by facts, thought, logic and reason."
Really? You said that this video is proof of how stupid liberals are. "and this video is a proof of that." In order to get from "these 12 ppl are stupid" to "liberals are stupid" your logic would have to go like this:
1. Most Americans know the answer to those questions.
2. These 12 ppl didn't so they are stupid.
3. All 12 people were liberal or at least knew what liberalism meant and sympathized with it.
4. A sample size of 12 people is enough to conclude that most liberal people are stupid.
None of those are safe assumptions. In fact it is a safe bet that all of them are false. Is this conservative logic?
Now let's look at some facts. For one thing, people with a college degree or higher are much more likely to be liberal than conservative. Does that fit with your 'liberals are stupid' theme? No. Does it mean liberals are smarter than conservatives? No. That would not be a very safe assumption to make. You would have to assume that everyone with a college degree is smarter than everyone without one. That would not be a safe, or conservative, assumption to make. It WOULD be an idealistic assumption to make. Saying in essence 'liberals are stupid' without any facts or reason to back it up is not a safe assumption, nor is it a conservative assumption. Rather it is being quite 'liberal' with the facts. It is much more likely that because both sides encompass millions of people, no one side is 'smarter' than the other. This is a much safer conclusion to make. Concluding that millions of people are less intelligent than you because they disagree with you is an opinion, and doesn't use or require facts, thought, logic, or reason.
I'll say it again, slower this time and spelled out better because I know you're a liberal.
I said it sounds Arab, not that it is. To most American ears, it sounds like a Muslim name. And when you throw in the middle name Hussein....well, even a liberal should be able to get that picture.
Obama was registered as a Muslim in at least one school he attended in Jakarta, and he would have been taught Islam at the Besuki school; sounds like a pretty thorough exposure to the teachings of Islam to me. In "Dreams From My Father," Obama wrote "In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies." One of Obamas teachers, Tine Hahiyary, says Obama took part in the "mengaji", the recitation of the Quran. In a NYT interview, Obama said the Muslim call to prayer was "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset." You know, that sounds like he had more than a passing familiarity and affinity for Islam to me.
Yes Indonesia is not Arabian. But most people equate Islam with Arabia since that was its origin and remains the base of Islam.
If you don't think my statement ("I think it's a safe bet that the ignoramus' on the Left vastly outnumber those on the Right") is accurate, I invite you, as John Ziegler did, to go out and find similar results among McCain voters. I can tell you right now: you can't.
As to your "logic" argument, you assume facts not in evidence. For one thing, it wouldn't require "most Americans" to know these facts in order to make the typical Obama voter look stupid. For another, since a majority of Americans voted for Obama, it could very well be that most Americans actually are this stupid. But that doesn't alter the facts.
It's also no surprise that people with a college degree are more likely to be liberal. It's also no surprise that people who graduate from a Christian college are more likely to be Christian. Most colleges are meccas of liberal indoctrination and have been for nearly 50 years, so it's no surprise that liberal colleges are producing liberals.
Also, don't make the mistake of equating "education" with intelligence or wisdom. If someone has been "educated" with inaccurate facts, they are still going to be as stupid--perhaps more so--than someone "uneducated." Also, merely having facts (whether they be true or false) does not mean a person is capable of combining those facts in a manner conducive to drawing reasonable conclusions. I've known people with a 9th grade education who could think rings around some people with PhDs.
But you're right about one thing: "Concluding that millions of people are less intelligent than you because they disagree with you is an opinion."
However, when those people who happen to disagree with you demonstrate an obvious and sad lack dearth of facts and information, they don't just disagree with you...they're demonstrably wrong.
Braden, from which study did you come up with the idea that says most degreed people are liberal?
I would agree that most people with a graduate degree are liberal. Most that have a bachelors are going to be conservative. Once they get into the work force, you find far more conservative values at least fiscally speaking. Socially, you maybe correct, but not fiscally.
I challenge you to provide proof for your facts.
I do agree that the media has played a very biased role in this last election. Criminal or not? Who knows? But it would be interesting to see how much people really know about the candidate they elected and ALSO how much they know about the other.
It won't happend though b/c most likely the results would prove that the media is somewhat biased. That much I think is obvious to all sides.
"You know, that sounds like he had more than a passing familiarity and affinity for Islam to me."
But does that make him a Muslim? Does understanding and respecting a religion make you a follower? I have a good understanding and respect for Islam. Am I a Muslim? If if Obama were a Muslim, does that disqualify him from office?
"I invite you, as John Ziegler did, to go out and find similar results among McCain voters"
I tried very hard, but I couldn't find any examples of push-polling done to McCain supporters. But I'll use a scenario I think you will agree would be fairly accurate.
1) Are you aware that Todd Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party and that Sarah Palin spoke at their convention as late as this year? (Most ppl would say no.)
2) Are you aware that John McCain was not born in the United States? (He was born on a base in Panama, which is just as good, but still most ppl wouldn't know this, and many would take it negatively even if it shouldn't be.)
3) Who said, "I believe we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time" in 2003 when discussing the Iraq War?
a) George Bush
b) Dick Cheney
c) Donald Rumsfeld
d) John McCain
(I'm not sure if most people would know that or not, probably not)
4) What was the name of Obama's preacher at Trinity? (everybody would know this)
(5) What was the name of the 1960's radical Obama served on an education board with? (most ppl would know this)
You see it's very easy to tape 12 people giving wrong anwers to questions and then draw wild conclusions about it. Does the fact that most people would know who the Weatherman Underground are but not the AIP indicate bias? I don't think so.
"I can tell you right now: you can't."
65% of Republicans think Saddam Hussein was involved in or planned the 9/11 attacks.
68% of Republicans believe the universe is 10,000 yrs old or less.
Only 49% of Republicans believe the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere is rising.
20% of those ppl identifying themselves as conservative deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun. (2006 General Social Surveys)
"Also, don't make the mistake of equating "education" with intelligence or wisdom."
Ya that's what I said we shouldn't do. But if I wanted to twist facts I could say liberals are smarter than conservatives because of education, which is the type of spin Ziegler is doing with 12 interviews.
Anonymous: "I challenge you to provide proof for your facts."
Well, I don't have an example of liberals vs. conservatives so I hope this works. People with post-college education favored Obama 54-44%. Amoung people with college degrees or some college it was tied. Amoung ppl with a highschool education or less McCain won 58-40%. (Pew Research Center)
Now, once again, I'm not saying Obama supporters are smarter than McCains. I'm just saying the facts could be twisted that way and we shouldn't do that.
Braden:
1. How many times do I have to tell you: the lady was asking a question based on the aforementioned factors. I don't think she said he was a Muslim.
2. Are you ignorant, as is Colin, as to what a push-poll is, Braden? This wasn't a push poll. Why don't you look up what one is. You obviously don't have a clue what one is. Your proposed polling questions are nice, but why don't you go conduct your poll and come back with the results?
3. You think you're being smart and proving some sort of ignorance on the part of McCain voters, but you're only broadcasting your own ignorance, not to mention your own closed-mindedness. There is evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved indirectly with 911. One of his officials met with Mohammed Atta several months before the attack. He also had a terrorist training camp at Salmon Pak. He gave safe haven to al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi; we don't have direct evidence, but there is a fair suspicion based several pieces of evidence (at least to anyone able to open their eyes long enough to look at the facts). You also have absolutely zero proof that the earth is NOT less than 10,000 years old; what you think is proof is based on fundamentally flawed "science" filled with assumptions and almost no hard data--it's laughable how scientifically closed-minded and myopic such assumptions are. You again show your ignorance with your global warming dogma; temperature data has been demonstrated to be flawed in a number of ways, and there is also far more evidence that any temperature change is natural and not caused by evil SUV-driving capitalists. And frankly I don't believe that many conservatives are that stupid about astronomy (and even if they are, the liberal tally on this question is probably much higher).
4. You tried to respond to Anonymous' challenge: "I challenge you to provide proof for your facts." However, you only offered subjective information that I would submit is only proof that due to the overwhelming and near-total Leftist bias in the education establishment, American universities are factories that produce more liberals. When someone comes out of an indoctrination camp, it's no surprise when they praise the indoctrinators.
The proof is still in the pudding, Braden. These Obama voters were clueless and it showed, as did the level of propaganda the public was fed by the "mainstream" media.
Alright, I don't want to dwell on these things because we are obviously not going to agree. I respect your opinion that Saddam was somehow involved w/ 9/11, because he certainly was no fan of ours, and it is possible we don't know all the facts. I also repect your view of global warming, while I think it is dangerous to completely disregard it, it is also possible that we don't completely understand the phenomenon, even though all the current data suggests it is a problem.
However, the issue of the age of the universe is an easily answerable question. The universe is either younger than 10,000 yrs old, or it is not. It is not.
I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of a light year. It is the distance that light can travel in a year at the speed of light, 186,000 mi/sec. This is very important, because the speed of light has never been observed to change in a vacuum.
When we see a star that is 10 LY away, that light left that star 10 years ago and has been traveling ever since to reach our eyes. We see it not as it is, but as it was 10 years ago. If the universe were only 10,000 yrs old, we would only be able to see 10,000 LY into space, because the light from stars farther than that would not have had time to reach us yet. We can see much, much further than that. We can see 13.7 billion LY into space, which means the universe must be at least 13.7 billion years old. If it were younger, the light from those very far away galaxies would not have had time to reach us yet.
There are only 2 options for a way around this:
1. The speed of light has changed. This is entirely theoretical, the speed of light has never been observed to change in a vacuum. Resorting to this answer means you assume that the universe MUST be younger than 13.7 billion years old, therefore the speed of light HAD to change to make that true.
2. God created the light already traveling towards us when he created the universe. This answer requires a dubious god. If this is the case, and that God somehow planted evidence to make it seem like the universe is very old, when it fact it is very young, can you really blame us for believing what the evidence suggests? How are we supposed to know God is dooping us? I, for one, refuse to believe in a deceitful god.
I don't see where "Let there be Light" conflicts with the idea of a Big Bang anyway.
Thank you for your concessions, Braden.
However, the age of the universe and the age of the earth are far from certain to be more than 10,000 years.
Are you aware the speed of light has been observed in laboratory conditions to have changed? In fact, it has been slowed to a near standstill in certain circumstances. It's entirely possible that over the course of the history of the universe--however long that might have been--that the speed of light may have changed, perhaps slowing down significantly. Or it could even behave differently in a gravity well.
I agree with you that theory #2 is dubious. I'm familiar with the theory, and while it has some merits, in the end I don't think it passes the credibility thresh hold.
Were you aware that scientists have recently announced that they believe our planet may exist inside an abnormal bubble of space-time that is particularly devoid of matter? They believe this could have the effect of altering our perception of the universe around us, and that "things could look farther away than they really are." This could account for the apparent problem with a young universe with vastly distant stars.
In any event, there are scientifically plausible theories within a creation framework (if one isn't too closed-minded to even consider them). And what some ancient-earth scientist would like to believe is solid evidence of an ancient earth is really just guesswork built on assumptions and conjecture.
I don't think "let there be light" necessarily conflicts with the general principles of the Big Bang theory either...but there would still have to be a supernatural cause, either way you look at it. And there is simply no way to fit the age of the human race, nor millions of years of fossils, within the Biblical framework--they are simply incompatible when you take thorough look at them.
But I appreciate your open mindedness thus far.
Post a Comment