Conséquence prévisible de la propagande médiatique lors de la dernière élection présidentielle:
Zogby Poll: Almost No Obama Voters Ace Election Test512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points.
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
94% of Obama voters correctly identified Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter, 86% correctly identified Palin as the candidate associated with a $150,000 wardrobe purchased by her political party, and 81% chose McCain as the candidate who was unable to identify the number of houses he owned. When asked which candidate said they could "see Russia from their house," 87% chose Palin, although the quote actually is attributed to Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey during her portrayal of Palin during the campaign.
Obama voters did not fare nearly as well overall when asked to answer questions about statements or stories associated with Obama or Biden — 83% failed to correctly answer that Obama had won his first election by getting all of his opponents removed from the ballot, and 88% did not correctly associate Obama with his statement that his energy policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry. Most (56%) were also not able to correctly answer that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground.
Nearly three quarters (72%) of Obama voters did not correctly identify Biden as the candidate who had to quit a previous campaign for President because he was found to have plagiarized a speech, and nearly half (47%) did not know that Biden was the one who predicted Obama would be tested by a generated international crisis during his first six months as President.
In addition to questions regarding statements and scandals associated with the campaigns, the 12-question, multiple-choice survey also included a question asking which political party controlled both houses of Congress leading up to the election — 57% of Obama voters were unable to correctly answer that Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate.
Je doute que Hétu vous parle de ça…
Je suis prêt à gager ma maison qu’on observerait le même phénomène, mais inversé, chez les »mccain voters ».
Attribuer ça aux médias, c’est leur donner une importance qu’ils n’ont pas dans la vie des gens.
Je suis 100% d’accord avec Episteme. On est toujours plus prompts les defauts de nos adversaires et ne pas s’apercevoir que 90% on a les memes!
Meilleure chance la prochaine fois:
Et prenons l’hypothèse ou les « McCain voteurs » auraient eu les mêmes résultats. ce résultats ne ferait que renforcer l’hypothèse voulant que les médias ont brainwashé la population.
Test. (mes trois derniers messages, dont le premier qui a été posté au sujet de la journaliste de CBC qui s’est faite kidnapper, ne sont pas apparus)
Hétu n’en pas parlé, mais la BBC oui: Confirming our prejudices.
Et, dans le même sens que Richard Hétu, Justin Webb semble douter de l’affirmation et est défendu par de nombreux commentateurs (pas tous, heureusement).
Avant Obama, Justin Webb a accusé son employeur de ne pas prendre les USA au sérieux. Mais avec l’élection, il ne s’est pas trop opposé à la ligne éditoriale.
Un-fucking-believeble.
Je paris que les lecteurs du blogue antagoniste auraient répondu correctement à presque toute les question.
On est mieux informé ici quand dans les mainstream media.
.
There are seriously dedicated people in this country — people possessing great wealth and power — who want the United States to follow Marx’s prescription, along the lines of socialist regimes in Europe, Asia and Latin America.
Obama’s indefinable “change” is their best shot at success since the Great Depression. Thwarted for decades and decades, they now see their chance.
Is this fear-mongering or Redbaiting? Not at all. It is unvarnished history.
These latter-day Marxists, by whatever pseudo-labels they reveal themselves, possess financial, media, and political resources that made Obama’s election possible. Obama didn’t do it. They did it — not for him, but for them.
Now, they’re crafting the payback they’ve fantasized all these years. That’s what’s going on below stage, where scenarios are furiously being scripted.
Onstage, the gifted TelePrompTer reader playing the role of President Obama will be handed his lines in due time. Expect boffo reviews from fawning critics.
New World Order Coming Home Soon.
I bet that Harper policies will take a left-turn
Bush Hands Over Reins of U.S. Economy to EU
Wednesday, November 19, 2008 2:28 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
The results of the G-20 economic summit amount to nothing less than the seamless integration of the United States into the European economy.
In one month of legislation and one diplomatic meeting, the United States has unilaterally abdicated all the gains for the concept of free markets won by the Reagan administration and surrendered, in total, to the Western European model of socialism, stagnation, and excessive government regulation.
Sovereignty is out the window. Without a vote, we are suddenly members of the European Union. Given the dismal record of those nations at creating jobs and sustaining growth, merging with the Europeans is like a partnership with death.
At the G-20 meeting, Bush agreed to subject the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and our other regulatory agencies to the supervision of a global entity that would critique its regulatory standards and demand changes if it felt they were necessary. Bush agreed to create a College of Supervisors.
According to The Washington Post, it would « examine the books of major financial institutions that operate across national borders so regulators could begin to have a more complete picture of banks’ operations. »
Their scrutiny would extend to hedge funds and to various « exotic » financial instruments. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), a European-dominated operation, would conduct « regular vigorous reviews » of American financial institutions and practices.
The European-dominated College of Supervisors would also weigh in on issues like executive compensation and investment practices.
There is nothing wrong with the substance of this regulation.
Experience is showing it is needed. But it is very wrong to delegate these powers to unelected, international institutions with no political accountability.
We have a Securities and Exchange Commission appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, both of whom are elected by the American people. It is with the SEC, the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve that financial accountability must take place.
The European Union achieved this massive subrogation of American sovereignty the way it usually does, by negotiation, gradual bureaucratic encroachment, and without asking the voters if they approve.
What’s more, Bush appears to have gone down without a fight, saving his debating time for arguing against the protectionism that France’s Nicolas Sarkozy was pushing.
By giving Bush a seeming victory on a moratorium against protectionism for one year, Sarkozy was able to slip over his massive scheme for taking over the supervision of the U.S. economy.
All kinds of political agendas are advancing under the cover of responding to the global financial crisis.
Where Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism by regulating it, Bush, to say nothing of Obama, has given the government control over our major financial and insurance institutions. And it isn’t even our government!
The power has now been transferred to the international community, led by the socialists in the European Union.
Will Obama govern from the left? He doesn’t have to.
George W. Bush has done all the heavy lifting for him. It was under Bush that the government basically took over as the chief stockholder of our financial institutions and under Bush that we ceded our financial controls to the European Union.
In doing so, he has done nothing to preserve what differentiates the vibrant American economy from those dying economies in Europe.
Why have 80 percent of the jobs that have been created since 1980 in the industrialized world been created in the United States? How has America managed to retain its leading 24 percent share of global manufacturing even in the face of the Chinese surge?
How has the U.S. GDP risen so high that it essentially equals that of the European Union, whose population is 50 percent greater?
It has done so by an absence of stifling regulation, a liberation of capital to flow to innovative businesses, low taxes, and by a low level of unionization that has given business the flexibility to grow and prosper.
Europe, stagnated by taxation and regulation, has grown by a pittance while we have roared ahead. But now Bush — not Obama — Bush has given that all up and caved in to European socialists.
The Bush legacy? European socialism. Who needs enemies with friends like Bush?
«L’élection de Barack Obama terrorise Al-Qaeda», a commenté Fawaz Gerges, chef du département d’études moyen-orientales au collège Sarah Lawrence à New York et auteur de deux livres sur le djihadisme, dont Journey of the Jihadist : Inside Muslim Militancy.
«Barack Obama représente le pire cauchemar de ben Laden», a ajouté l’universitaire d’origine libanaise au cours d’une entrevue téléphonique. «Sa rhétorique et son symbolisme changent les règles du jeu. Il délégitime ben Laden et Al-Qaeda aux yeux des Arabes et des musulmans.»
On s’en reparlera quand Obama mattre pluis de pression militaire sur l’Afghanistan et le Pakistan.
On s’en reparlera si Obama reconduit les politique d’interrogation de la CIA.
Mais ce qui est bien c’est que la gauche est tellement en pâmoison devant Obama que ce dernier pourra reprendre les politiques de Bush et les obamistes ne le critiqueront jamais.
Mais pour les islamistes rien ne changera. L’Iran a annoncé cette semaine que le slogan « mort à l’Amérique » serait toujours utilisé dans les manifestation américaine organisé par son gouvernement.
Finalement rien n’a changé. Les islamistes détestent toujours autant les USA.
Les antiaméricains québécois et d’ailleurs également.
J’ai pas dit les mêmes résultats. J’ai dit les mêmes résultats, mais inversés. C’est-à-dire que les histoires négatives liées à mccain seraient moins connues comparativement aux histoires négatives liées à Obama. Il s’agirait dans ce cas plutôt d’un biais personnel des électeurs(les électeurs »leaning toward Obama » auraient plus tendance à faire attention aux nouvelles négatives à l’égard de mccain et vice versa)
Mais je te laisse dans ton monde où les médias contrôlent les cerveaux des gens.
J’ai déjà eu des discussions de corridors à l’université sur comment la plupart des gens sont ignorants quant à ce genre de questions. Je faisais même des petits tests, en demandant aux gens passant à côté des questions du genre «qui est le Ministre des finances du Canada?» Ce n’est pas scientifique, mais c’est quand même très convainquant quant à l’ignorance en général… même à l’université.
Impossible, les histoire négatives liés à McCain ont obtenu une couverture médiatique disproportionnée.
Encore une fois, tu ignores les faits.
JPJ
Et tu t’attendais à quoi d’autre de la part des islamistes?
@ Caligula
Hopenchange
😆
Pourquoi 7 des personnes interrogées dans le documentaires sont noires. Il me semble qu’il y a un problème de représentation dans ce sondage. http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/verdict-zogby-poll-suppsedly-demonst
L’auteur, John Ziegler, interviewé dans le frontpage du 01/12/08 :
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4C0C4696-B02C-4577-8C80-8376CC5B095A